Radicalization myth
This article by Dr Piotr Wozniak is part of SuperMemo Guru series on memory, learning, creativity, and problem solving. (August 2019)
Radicalization vs. free speech
Radicalization myth says that free speech should be limited on social media because it carries a risk of radicalization.
Extensive radicalization report by UNESCO shows that even without good models of radicalization, we understand the need to protect free speech. In this text I want to present a simple model that implies that limits on freedom of speech can have the opposite effect and increase the risk and consequences of radicalization.
Radicalization myth leads to erroneous strategies that can potentially undercut individual freedoms. For example, see: Ban on homeschooling
Bias and falsity vectors
Knowledge is good on average. I have argued that for decades (see: Goodness of knowledge). Humans learn efficiently in conditions of freedom. Efficient learning that converges on the truth is best guided by the system of the learn drive that powers all healthy brains. All humans develop knowledge that is biased and uneven. For a child interested in physics, the knowledge of physics will grow at the cost of other interests, perhaps history, or geography.
I will use the term bias vector to refer to all intrinsic and extrinsic factors that influence learning and result in biased knowledge. Passions and interests are a form of a bias vector. However, specific interests rarely favor false models of reality unless they revolve around areas of human mythology that depart from scientific truth. For example, for someone interested in "psychic powers of the brain", the risk of developing false models must be pretty high.
The brain carries inherent biases that distort models of reality. Some of those biases may lead to beliefs in dangerous falsehoods. Adolf Hitler's hate of the Jews was a quintessential example of a bias vector that inevitably lead to wrong models of reality. Wrong models have value in science. However, they can also lead to unspeakable horrors such as the Holocaust. I will use the term falsity vector for a bias vector that warps reality and inherently favors false models.
All brains are subject to the effects of multiple bias vectors that may lead to knowledge that is uneven but largely correct. Falsity vectors lead to false beliefs that may underlie false ideologies.
In a battle of the memes, a healthy brain weighs up the evidence, and produces a generalization, which may lead to incorrect conclusions due to bias vectors. I know that exhaust fumes from a passing car increase the risk of my death from cancer. However, my generalizing brain tends to overestimate that risk due to my obsession with health. This bias vector may lead to suboptimum decisions, but it is not impervious to counterevidence, e.g. I might moderate upon reading an article about new research on hormesis.
In contrast, a brain under a strong influence of falsity vectors is more likely to ignore evidence against a thesis whose alleged veracity is boosted by a falsity vector. For example, a sexual preference for blue eyes may, in the long run, lead to a false belief that non-whites are less intelligent than whites. This falsity vector may lead to inherently wrong decisions, e.g. in employee selection. Hitler's hate would lead to distorted models of reality that, in hindsight, were doomed to lead to results opposite to those intended (i.e. the collapse of the Third Reich).
Today, we fear Islamic radicalization or white supremacist radicalization in equal measure. To combat radicalization, many well-intended voices insist that radical websites need to be shut down, and that social media platforms should actively eradicate content that is deemed extreme. I disagree and believe that all we need is a bit of algorithmic assistance with TruthRank from Google to accelerate the convergence of knowledge onto true models (see: Freedom of information). A degree of knowledge averaging via wisdom of the crowds has nothing to do with knowledge homogenization that I castigate in the context of schooling. Wisdom of the crowds can be employed as a bias vector that assists individuals in homing in onto the right models in the area of their interest. Averaging should be voluntary, optional, and used as an assistance in areas of lesser priority.
For example, I do not mind acquiring homogenized knowledge on the history of Europe from Wikipedia. This is not my top priority area. I do not mind learning about sleep from Wikipedia either. However, in the area of my own interest, I will always explore new research, new crazy theories, contrarian claims, my own data, and my own past and new models. I will not be radicalized by Mein Kampf, or supremacist sites. However, I am curious what they have to say. After all, it is an ancient wisdom of warfare: know your enemy.
Cognitive biases are not falsity vectors. They are systematic, but they are remediable. They are errors on deep input, or an inherent brain property, while falsity vectors affect knowledge processing, retention, and generalization. We are all vulnerable to cognitive biases, while falsity vectors generate unique minds whose extreme views depend on the power of the vector.
Radicalization model
Literature on radicalization is rich and it lists numerous root causes of the problem. My knowledge-based model of radicalization is very simple and accounts for or falsifies all radicalization factors mentioned by other authors.
There are two main factors that drive radicalization:
- biased access to information (i.e. limits on the extent of the explorable knowledge space)
- biased exploration vectors (i.e. disruption in the exploration trajectories in the knowledge space)
Biased access to information includes censorship, propaganda, poverty, parental control, etc. In the modern world, limited or biased information is becoming less and less of a problem. Openness of the web is the positive factor of change.
In exploratory learning, most important bias vectors are those associated with the reward system. Authoritarian parenting, schooling, bullying, isolation, discrimination, injustice, abuse, loss of freedom, etc. may lead to learned helplessness, depression, anger, envy, hate, and other emotions that distort information processing.
Bias vectors affect the exploration trajectory, which determines the exposure. They also affect perception by coloring interests. Finally they determine retention by a number of factors, of which interference of new knowledge with own models is one of the most important.
Paradoxically, high IQ individuals, and highly creative individuals are more likely to be radicalized on their own via learning. The process of radicalization can be spontaneous. Spontaneous self-radicalization is most persistent and most dangerous.
Kevin Roose: case study
In a frontpage article of New York Times, Kevin Roose has recently documented a case of Caleb Cain who was a young liberal radicalized by alt-right ideology dished out at YouTube. Cain provided Roose with the history of his YouTube exploration. It included 12,000 videos that Roose analyzed meticulously.
This is a fantastic research material, and the case is a wonderful illustration of the radicalization mechanisms, however, the ultimate conclusions drawn from Cain's case were wrong.
Roose and Cain concluded that YouTube recommendations algorithm is a powerful radicalization force. In my terminology, Roose claims that YouTube forms a sort of extrinsic falsity vector. Due to this fact, according to Roose, responsible corporations should unbias their algorithms to reduce the risk of radicalization.
My conclusions are drastically different. YouTube recommendations algorithm works marvelously. It powerfully amplifies personal interests and makes expansion of knowledge more efficient. In some ways, it reminds me of spreading activation in neural creativity except its goal is not to surprise with new creative associations in a chosen field, but to stay within the area of interest to look for new inspiration. YouTube is an amplifier of interests, and as such it is a healthy weak bias vector. It is not a falsity vector. There is no inherent falsification of reality other than that carried in videos determined by interests. If there are secretive biases akin to censorship, they should be revealed and condemned. Some algorithmic biases come from culturally-determined community guidelines (e.g. in reference to pornography). These are well-intended, but provide an unnecessary distortion of the knowledge space. A good recommendation system should be able to figure out which users dislike a particular kind of content.
In case of Caleb, I would rather look for falsity vectors elsewhere. He mentioned he was a depressed drop out. In other words, he suffered the injury of schooling, the injury of social pressure, the disillusionment with college, which might all lead to a bias against liberal thinking. Those strong emotional factors could have formed a falsity vector.
Instead of blaming YouTube for Caleb's radicalization, we should rather observe and celebrate how the same source of knowledge provided a counterbalancing bias vectors that made Caleb realize he was sinking into a rabbit hole. My interpretation of the story is that schooling, dropping out, and isolation generated a falsity vector, this resulted in radicalization, however, free exploration on YouTube made it possible for Caleb to recover his healthy learn drive that strengthened his exploratory learning. In the end, Caleb arrived at a rich and well-informed point of view in which he understood all sides of the equations and could take a bird's eye view at himself and the philosophies that shaped his thinking. Today, as many other "former radicals", Caleb is a precious source of understanding of how radicalization happens. Roose did not just document a case of radicalization, but a wider case of healthy free learning. With the help of a free learning platform (YouTube), Caleb moved from the left, to the right, and then back to the center only to find a wise balance. My own childhood radicalization case is very different, but it illustrates the exactly same process based on the same model.
Instead of blaming YouTube, which is a platform for healthy free learning, we should rather have a closer look at the socialization and indoctrination forces that underlie the Prussian education system. School made Caleb depressed. YouTube set Caleb free.
Caleb Cain story
Caleb received a conservative Christian upbringing. By the time of college he labelled himself a liberal. He was pretty idealistic, reminding me of younger myself, and looking for his own ways without being "controlled by society". That's a classic escape from social contexts that limit a young man's freedom and development. However, college did not meet his youthful ideals. When he dropped out, he felt rejected, isolated, and depressed. He met all the conditions necessary for weakening social connections and developing strong falsity vectors that underlie all forms of radicalization.
YouTube was Caleb's refuge. His first stop on his journey was Stefan Molyneux who, acc. to Caleb, provided a great deal of shared views and feelings (e.g. traumatic childhood, striving for self-improvement, etc.). For Caleb who thought of himself as "uneducated", Stef was a true "philophopher" and a fountain of wisdom. One of Stef's guests was Jordan Peterson who had the same father figure effect on Caleb. Molyneux and Peterson discussed, among others, genetic aspects of IQ, from which they derived a great deal of far reaching supremacists conclusions (e.g. see 39:32 in the video). Interestingly, just 2 year earlier, Molyneux hosted James Flynn and seemed to show good comprehension of the Flynn Effect and its mechanics.
From Stef and his guests, Caleb kept drifting towards the far right. Some of the argument seemed attractive. For a while, he ignored his disagreement with studied personalities. He got sold on reasoning about strong borders, race, identity, culture, increased birth rates, more intelligent people having more children, etc. Caleb compared ideological indoctrination via social media to a sales funnel. Educating potential customers, funneling them towards an ideology, and rejecting those that seem inferior candidates. However, this "sales funnel" mechanism is a natural part of human learning in which models emerge via generalization, inflow of new data, rejecting contradictory evidence, maturation, etc. The same funnel might have taken Caleb to extreme communist or anarchist ideology. At the bottom of the funnel, the concept of "Jewish conspiracy" turned out to be a step too far. Caleb realized he was dabbling in neo-Nazi doctrines. When his newly adopted convictions were confronted with left-leaning YouTubers who use irony and humor rather than outrage of the mainstream media, Caleb's evolution took a new turn. In early 2017, Caleb watched Destiny debate Lauren Southern and saw him "wipe the floor with Lauren". He "liked the style. It was impressive, and terrifying. How can I be so wrong? All Lauren had was appeal to emotion". Caleb explained that Bonnell [Destiny] and Wynn [ContraPoints] were funny. Instead of outrage, They rolled their eyes. They spoke native language of YouTube. For illustration, see ContraPoints take on Jordan Peterson in a way that Cathy Newman interview could not, e.g 8:11 illustrates the power of "disarming humor".
Soon, YouTube started injecting more liberal material into Caleb's stream and Caleb started evolving in the opposite direction: to the left.
Caleb says he never hated anyone. This means that his radicalization was not too dangerous. Moreover it was temporary. His falsity vectors were born from his circumstances. He said he was "fed up with being controlled". This is a classic effect of the loss of freedom, and a classic resultant falsity vector that does not need to last. It is better to be free to learn wrong stuff, that keep learning good stuff in conditions of enslavement. Freedom ensures the revival of the learn drive, harmonious and levelled learning and recovery from heavy biases. Once the falsity vector is removed (in this case, limits on freedom), the individual is likely to recover. Caleb was never a case for panic. If he is a good model of the process, the process is harmless most of the time.
Caleb's venture to YouTube should then be considered a healthy pathway towards a learn drive recovery. Diving into YouTube was like a substitute for an anti-depressant that provides a temporary protection from further injury to the learn drive, which in such circumstances might as well be called a "life drive". Despite a detour towards the extremes of alt-right, Caleb's brain was slowly recovering its variegated passions. It showed in the balancing backswing towards the left and the realization of own errors and falsity vectors. This type of oscillation is natural in development. The extreme size of the swing is only an expression of the original pathology inflicted on Caleb by social circumstances. All kids oscillate, and drift away, and balance their views looking for evidence coming from multiple sources. This happens at older ages too. My swing towards a radical condemnation of schooling is a result of intense study of associated areas in the last five years. Today, I cringe at my meek recommendations made in an old podcast interview. I emphasized the importance of passions in learning without ever pointing fingers to the most notorious killer of passions: the school.
Today, Caleb is a nice case of a free mind that contemplates setting up a channel that might one day compete with its own former father figure of Stefan Molyneux. He made a good start. Compare his sincere monologue with Stef's petty, oversensitive, and hypercritical reply to Roose's article (see: Paradox of Stefan Molyneux).
By the time Caleb is of Stef's age, the world will be different and his knowledge may evolve and crystallize further making him potentially into a substantial force. It was all born in rapid philosophical transformation and countless hours spent on YouTube. Paradoxically, Caleb is an ally and a supplement to the opposing positions of Molyneux and Roose.
While he might have considered "sameness" as an ingredient of social cohesion, today, he may see that multiculturalism is an exercise in tolerance, and tolerance is also a tool of cohesion. There are common reasoning threads between Molyneux, Roose, Cain, myself, and others. However, we always learn most from the differences and contradictions. YouTube turns out to be a tool that favors rich and healthy social cohesion. It serves the emergence of new quality in learning and in social discourse.
Roose's diagnosis
Roose's research is fascinating and precious. However, even a minor error in conclusions can result in a major error in strategy. Roose wrote:
Critics and independent researchers say YouTube has inadvertently created a dangerous on-ramp to extremism by combining two things: a business model that rewards provocative videos with exposure and advertising dollars, and an algorithm that guides users down personalized paths meant to keep them glued to their screens
This sentence is almost correct. However, "provocative" is not the reward criterion in reinforcement learning in YouTube algorithms. Initially, YouTube prioritized for the number of views, which favored clickbait material. It then moved on to optimizing for viewing time, which is the best expression of what we look for in videos from a personal perspective. Brain science says that if a long lecture can keep the viewer's attention for long, that lecture must be characterized by high learntropy. Learntropy may be enhanced by provocative content or clickbait titles, however, it is primarily determined by the new quality the content is able to generate in the viewer's brain. If YouTube is powered by learntropy, then it is a fantastic learning tool, which should receive high acclaim. If some of the clickbait content is at fault, it is always self-extinguishing as no viewer wants to be fooled twice, and brands may quickly acquire bad reputation if they abuse the tricks of the trade.
YouTube powered by learntropy, is a bit like incremental reading or neural creativity except it runs in a public knowledge space rather than a preselected personal knowledge space (see: YouTube vs. SuperMemo).
YouTube powered by learntropy only means amplification of passions and acceleration of learning. Faster development is a good thing, and the trouble stems from falsity vectors, not from the algorithm. The weakness resides in human minds, not at YouTube.
Roose's radicalization formula
Rich experience based on rich input data leads to precious generalizations. Knowing Roose's substantial research effort, I trust his judgement when he says:
Over years of reporting on internet culture, I’ve heard countless versions of Mr. Cain’s story: an aimless young man — usually white, frequently interested in video games — visits YouTube looking for direction or distraction and is seduced by a community of far-right creators
I would extend that generalization by noticing that the young man may equally well be brown and interested in radical Islamic content. In recent years, the radicalization myth has swung its targets from Islamic radicalization to white supremacy radicalization. For the source of research material, I like the latter because it is easier for me to compare it with my own thoughts and my own potential for radicalization. My understanding of Islam and Middle East cultures is too limited. I am at a higher risk of hypothesizing wrongly. However, as a white European, I should be a pretty typical target of white radicalization as per Roose's formula.
The youth may also gravitate towards far left (e.g. militant antifa, ecoterrorism, etc.). The ultimate extreme vertex of the knowledge space topology may be determined by a strong falsity vector derived from a single event in life (e.g. injustice, death of a loved one, etc.), or a single dominant emotion, of which empathy may produce undesirable outcomes as much as hate.
Here is my translation of Roose's formula to my own terminology:
- aimless refers to a learn drive vacuum that accelerates learning, esp. when a new goal shows up as a strong valuation/reward on the horizon
- distraction may indicate prior injury, e.g. helplessness due to authoritarian parenting, schooling, or other limits on freedom. This injury increase the interest in videogames and changes the profile of this interest (e.g. away from educational towards FPS)
Roose has generalized a good formula where recovery from learned helplessness goes with a ravenous learn drive that may quickly lead to undesired outcomes steered by strong unidirectional falsity vectors. This process is largely self-correcting, but the correction can rarely be considered complete. Some falsity vectors may be associated with unhealthy emotional life that leads to a progressive worsening of the pathology. Emotional and intellectual decline of Adolf Hitler in his later years is an epitome of the process.
Human inner dark side
Kevin Roose is wrong about YouTube's steering people to Crazytown: "If I’m YouTube and I want you to watch more, I’m always going to steer you toward Crazytown".
Roose seems to be making claims about human nature, and he might be on the constrained/tragic side (to use Sowell's terminology outlined in "A Conflict of Visions"). I boldly claim that we are born good with brains shaped by the principles of game theory powered by natural empathy, and a few associated instincts. It is the abuse or the constraints on freedom that lead to injury that requires further constraint. Once you start abusing a wild cat, you need to continue for your own survival's sake. Falsity vectors are born from constraints on freedom.
When I click on lectures in my own field of interest, e.g. as delivered by great brains of Mathew Walker, Gerald Edelman, György Buzsáki, or Giulio Tononi, I keep getting more of them, not their polar opposites or pseudoscience of sleep and memory. However, a minor injection of the opposite is always welcome, and I like to delve there too (if my patience allows). YouTube injects a dose of creative disruption in the algorithm.
Kevin Roose asked "What would you click? 'Landing on the moon' or 'We never landed on the moon!'". He reasons that this proves we always opt for the extreme and that social media can dig into our darker nature. The reality is a bit simpler. It is a matter of learntropy. On the 50th anniversary of moon landing, we seem to know almost everything about Apollo 11. The story carries little novelty. Outlandish theories may be more interesting just because they deliver a new message. However, I would personally rather not click on "we never landed". That's my own bias vector that tells me that I am facing a clickbait or a conspiracy theory. This may reflect my immunization that requires some time of exposure to free speech on the net.
It is true that YouTube algorithms would dig out those preferences. However, this algorithmic bias is good. It only amplifies our personality and accelerates learning that would happen anyway. Rather than calling for higher accountability, we should praise YouTube.
YouTube vs. SuperMemo
Paradox of Stefan Molyneux
Caleb Cain was inspired by Stefan Molyneux: "Stef`s videos were like a spark to kind of jolt me out" [from the depression] "What I didn't realize was all the ideology that came with that". To understand Molyneux, you cannot read Molyneux. He needs to be seen!
For me, incremental reading is the best way to transfer knowledge from the web to my head. However, incremental reading should always be complemented with sources that cannot be replaced with textual information. Real life is a prime complement. In the context of radicalization and Molyneux, YouTube is also a powerful source of knowledge (I use and recommend incremental video for consuming YouTube).
YouTube is great for actors, demagogues, propagandists, ideologues, philosophers, gurus, leaders, and the like. It is a great platform for influencing the young generation. It is also a fantastic platform for studying the psychology of YouTube leaders.
YouTube is irreplaceable in (remote) studying the human mind behind an interesting theory. It is enough to listen to Jared Taylor speak about races, or Stefan Molyneux speak about the left to instantly detect deeply rooted emotional falsity vectors. I can literally sense those adrenaline jolts in their arteries. Stefan Molyneux did not reply to Roose's inquires, but he replied with his detailed analysis of the NYT article on his channel.
That analysis was vintage Molyneux (see: The Making of a YouTube Radical). He attacked NYT, its motivations, the left, the liberals, and a dozen of straw men on the way. A strong falsity vector wakes up in alpha male individuals when their ideological or personal feelings are touched (see: Donald Trump for the narcissisms trait). Molyneux could have made this reply short and to the point: "I am a free man, I can say what I think, and Caleb Cain is free not to watch. Period". Instead, Stef invested 52 minutes into splitting hairs over terminology, and just being cantankerous. This is quite a contrast to his usual well-poised and informative interview videos.
By going into details of Roose's and Cain's thinking, Molyneux detracted from his obvious innocence derived from the free speech principle. This is how many ad personam attacks begin, and this is how powerful falsity vectors may be born.
Molyneux unjustly mocked Kevin Roose's research with words: "I heard of the guy who likes Plato and now does not like Plato, so I will interview him". Molyneux says he would be laughed out of the university for such an approach to "science". The key point of the NYT article was not about the wrongs of alt-right (Plato), but about the evolution of a young mind and its causes. Caleb Cain is a perfectly valid research subject with a potential for precious findings. My own reasoning is often inspired by a single anecdote that helps me build a model that is consistent with what we know about the brain. I do not work in academia and have no worries about being laughed out. I focus on the truth and the message.
Molyneux falsity vector(s) woke up more than once in his analysis. When neo-Nazi were mentioned by Roose, Molyneux noticed: "the view from the left is that anyone to the right of me is bigoted" (which is neither said in the article nor true). He then complained about an equivalent lack of criticism of the left as if one could not mention blondes without a fair balance of brunettes. It is pretty obvious that one can veer to the extreme left equally easily. It is just the matter of the directionality of the falsity vector. For example, depression does not usually help see others in better light, which may enhance less trusting Hobbesian conservative preferences.
Molyneux spent a lot of time analyzing the right-wing stage in Caleb's life without a sign of nicely acknowledging young man's initial enchantment with Molyneux himself. For me that would be a polite act of rudimentary niceness. He narcissistically spent more time on the analysis of himself in the story than on the core Roose's thesis, i.e. the problem with the YouTube algorithm. The article does not blame alt-right for its existence, or Molyneux for his philosophy, but YouTube for steering young minds in their direction.
For the record, I like Molyneux and I always learn a lot from his interviews or monologues. The strongest defense of Molyneux channels and philosophy should come from his openness to interview people representing the whole spectrum of opinion. Noam Chomsky was a guest on freedomainradio.com too. It does not bother me that Molyneux harshly injects himself into the conversation, and that his preferences show clearly. This is most visible when relevant interviews are juxtaposed against each other. Molyneux can respectfully nod to James Flynn on the impact of welfare on IQ, only to enthusiastically applaud opposite claims on white IQ from Jared Taylor. Molyneux condemns spanking as a form of parental violence and then admits to pushing his own daughter into disciplined learning. He can avidly soak wisdom from Peter Gray only to arrogantly blast a hapless unschooling dad of a teenager for lack of parenting and educational grit. In that latter case, showcasing his flair for pseudopsychoanalysis, Molyneux revealed himself as a man full of contempt for the "weak", and a classic authoritarian parent (despite all his claims to the contrary).
Molyneux is a treasure. He is a constellation of positions, smart and bigoted, constellation of interesting guests representing the entire spectrum of philosophy, and, most of all, he is engaging and fun. If depression can be cured by restoring a healthy learn drive, people like Molyneux have a power to sprout new branches of knowledge whose ultimate impact is unpredictable. Perhaps this is the exact good thing that happened to Caleb Cain. Molyneux revived Caleb and ultimately help him steer back to his liberal roots derived naturally from Caleb's strong empathetic character. Molyneux is not a radicalization factor. He is an inspiration. It would be a true loss to humanity if Molyneux was to be suppressed in any way on YouTube. Listen to Stef's appeal on a competing BitChute platform.
Dangers of censorship
People like Jared Taylor should be present on the web, or we will never understand their motivations and reasoning. Molyneux put it metaphorically: people with censorship ideas want to cut off the rattlesnake's head, but they end up cutting off its rattle instead. That makes the rattlesnake even more deadly. When Jared Taylor came to Poland, he could truly enjoy the "fresh air" of white homogeneity. This is a clear pointer to a strong falsity vector: he reacts emotionally to ethnic diversity. He loves whiteness and hates color. That's a prime example of a falsity vector that can never be remedied with high IQ, and rational reasoning based on flawless logic. When Molyneux came to Poland, he expressed similar feelings: "clean streets, no crime, nobody is called a racist, no diversity nagging", etc. Stefan explains those good things on evolutionary grounds "through suffering, the whites evolved to delay gratification to survive winter". My own explanations of Polish success are less biological and more socialist in nature: Poland was "put in order" in communist times (in conditions of equal scarcity and deprivation, crime temptations are diminished), then we got an injection of energy through freedom of 1989, and finally, Poland consumed a lion's share of investment from the European Union after 2004. Polish success parallels my "lucky, free, and easy" upbringing: 26 years of free education sponsored by communist governments, and then 30 years of creative freedom under free capitalism. Those good times in Poland might soon be over. I wish Molyneux proved me wrong, but the greedy onslaught on state coffers with unheard of socialist appetites by socially conservative right will soon bring its dividends. Our "great white IQ" does not seem to be helping at the moment. Politically, Poland is a mess (see: I stopped being patriotic).
Jared Taylor marvels over Korea or Japan as ethnostates, but few people really flock to Japan these days. The diversity and freedom of the USA seems far more of an attraction. It is as if diversity self-amplified to spite white supremacists. Instead of building a white state in the US, which cannot come without friction or even war, Taylor might himself look for an ethnically pure white country and move in there? Perhaps Poland?
Dr Robert Sapolsky often cites research showing that we may have programmed emotional reactions to otherness. Those preferences can be attenuated via learning. So do sexual preferences. The problem is that some of those derive from low level decoding that is hard to change, and early memories that are hard to displace. It is rather unlikely to train the ability to fall in love with a rock.
I have no idea about the origins or the exact nature of my own ethnic falsity vectors, if any. I have no recall of ever being affected by fears of otherness. Just the opposite, diversity always seemed attractive to me. I never walked a street of an African, Asian or Arab city. The closest approximation was my participation in music festivals for foreign students. My associations are the opposite to those of Taylor's. Those were colorful parties full of joy. I always loved African music. It is possible that those emotions might be forming my own bias, but so does mom's love for her own child. That love can make a mom present a false testimony in court. The value of my own bias, if any, is that I can see Sapolsky's and Taylor's claims in a very unique light. The best part of my ethnic biases is that I see them evolve and change to a significant degree. This proves their learnability (or trainability). Hereby I see that these are like preferences for different brands of wine. This is less about fears, and more about attractions. The universal fear of the unknown programmed into a child's brain can be mitigated by knowing. Singapore proved by policy that it is possible to build tolerance in conditions of diversity.
If winter and suffering made whites smarter in mere 100-200 thousand years, as Molyneux would have it, we might have developed brains optimized for grit and self-discipline. If that was true, perhaps my falsity vectors should give origin to a claim that Africans evolving in alleged "conditions of plenty" learned to enjoy life and respect their biological needs. This is why we are getting fat and depressed, while an African child can celebrate a meager fruit, and joyfully go to school. For the exact same reason, given millions of years of evolution, polar bears are far better at delaying gratification than lions (not!).
My point is that all those discussions make sense, independent of how preposterous they are, and how far they depart from plausibility. A knowledge embargo on false prophets amplifies those inherent biases that hurt knowledge independent of its valuations seen from different perspectives. Without an injection of crazy theories, life would be as boring as a perfectly redacted school textbook.
Psychopathy myth
It is extremely dangerous to dismiss people like Adolf Hitler as inborn pathologies. It is a very popular street opinion: "Hitler was just a psychopath". In reality, he was a case of extreme radicalization. Modern societies seem to have developed better mechanisms against such development trajectories. However, there will be more cases like Anders Breivik. One of those might end up in power. Paradoxically, Scandinavian countries with their "modern" overengineered socialist approach to upbringing are at particular risk. Kids need freedom, open behavioral spaces, and the associated acute stress that leads to stress resilience. Child abuse is one of the worst risk factors, however, sheltering kids from the realities of the world may also be dangerous, esp. when it is combined with a dose of authoritarian parenting, or with non-authoritarian approaches that undermine attachment. The umbrella of the authoritarian nanny state is equally dangerous. The list of parental offenses that spur Barnevernet to action reads like a classic case of baby management based on ancient behavioral assumptions. Dr Robert E. Larzelere research shows that we should even be cautious about a ban on spanking. Efforts targeted at engineering a perfect child may spawn more Breiviks.
As explained in Ban on homeschooling, homegrown terrorism usually stems from the disruption in the reward system that is a result of child abuse, authoritarian parenting, strict schooling, perceived injustice, lost of freedom, etc. It is not a religion or ideology that drives deviant behaviors. It is the lack of reward that is typically dished out to all members of a healthy social group. The same mechanism that drives kids to drugs may turn them into converts to new "religions".
Brain hacking
For more about brain hacking and associated myths see:
- Brain algorithms protect models of reality
- Myths are easy to swallow and hard to kill
- Myth: Our brains can get hacked by algorithms
- Value of wrong models
Summary
- censorship of social media may lead to dangerous social ignorance
- healthy minds do not respond to radical content with radicalization
- biased access to information may assist radicalization
- free speech and open Internet are excellent remedies against biased learning
- given free speech, radicalization is born from the flaws of the human mind
- given free speech, radicalization is the effect of falsity vectors
- falsity vectors are born from errors in upbringing, socialization, and schooling
- restricted freedoms are the most prevalent cause of falsity vectors
- falsity vectors differ from other bias vectors (including cognitive biases) in that the remedy is psychiatric in nature
- rich learning and creativity may lead to the recovery of the suppressed learn drive, which may eliminate or soften falsity vectors
- rich learning and creativity may co-exist with a powerful falsity vector (e.g. hate)
- rich learning and creativity may lead to the most dangerous varieties of self-radicalization
- YouTube is a fantastic free learning platform
- YouTube recommendation algorithm dramatically increases the learntropy of presented videos
- controversial philosophers with extreme points of view should be considered an inspiration, not danger
- rich free information with false ingredients is better than a polished picture of reality
- Caleb Cain story is a wonderfully documented case of the evolution of the mind through learning
- most underappreciated caused of radicalizations are child abuse, baby management, institutionalization, schooling, and other restrictions of freedom
- to prevent radicalization with need to feed kids with love, provide free learning, combat discrimination, and ensure personal freedoms from the cradle to the grave