I think the most common example I see of cognitive rigidity is the inability to entertain hypotheticals. They literally can’t step out of their worldview for half a second. I also view this as a giveaway that the person isn’t confident in their ability to defend their position, even if they act confident
accent, i'd say.. sorry (not native english speaker myself) is slightly more demanding to understand.. nothing which cant be overcome with more listening.. but could that be the reason?
I think we can't conflate partisanship with ideology. Because in my experience, people that are to the extremes in ideology, for example anarchists, real communists, and occasionally the far right, tend to view both parties with skepticism and thus be independent. So while this can be framed as a win for the "center", it can also be the exact opposite, or neither.
You could easily argue they view them with skepticism because they can't see nuance (although I'm not sure that works with the Republican Party anymore).
I don't think this study is anything but self-fulfilling, I mean it is very obvious that people with strong political convictions will be more certain of their views and therefore less likely to change opinion. Independents not being sure or just entertaining a lot of different perspectives will also by nature be more likely to change views. Of course it is interesting that they are able to prove it with that simple test but as a thesis it is pretty self-evident what the results are going to be.
I am not right-wing but I often wondered why the psychology of left-wing authoritarianism was ignored in the literature. Good to see it is catching up to date. I would agree you see it more on the right, but you can see it in both. By the way, my hypothesis would be that rigidity leads to poltical extremes. After all, when it comes to politics, people rarely change their mind.
this goes with my hypothesis that the political spectrum isn't flat, it's a globe where the four corners connect. because no matter if you're left or right going to extreme always winds up the same: totalitarianism
@@IgorNV hate to break it to you but having no rules whatsoever isn't left, nor is it right... it's just anarchy it's literally center. hence why i said the spectrum is wrong
Before we get anywhere near a definition for Cognitive Rigidity, we need a definition for Extremism. 2ndly, if they hare not comparing "not extremists" with the "extremists", they can't demonstrate a positive correlation between "extremism" and Cognitive Rigidity. Instead, the researchers just assumed everyone knew what they were talking about - it's just asinine groupthink. Edit: left out "can't" before demonstrate. That the researcher hasn't even considered that some issues are not negotiable eg the right to strike (take industrial action), or the right to health care & housing, for reasons OTHER than Cognitive Rigidity reflects upon the researcher alone. You might call them...Cognitively Rigid. That these basic & fundamental issues escaped not only the researcher, but their faculty suggests there isn't anyone on the left there at all, let alone "Left Wing Bias". Edit: the above demonstrates a correlation without causation between org lacking lefties and orgs lack of competence. I propose the underlying cause is a lack of diversity of perspective in the researchers work environment & potentially their social life. I suspect leftists in their social life find the researchers tiresome and irrelevant ; leftists gave up. An alternative interpretation to that of an ernest, smug and amusingly bad research: Commissioned validation by a self identifying centrist.
Exactly; the ontological foundations of this 'research' are extremely biased, ironically enough. What's more, even the term 'cognitive rigidity' is a bit of a misnomer, because one's viscosity is always going to be contingent in either direction according to particular circumstantial appeals, which makes the reification of the term as an essentialized 'cognitive' property specious, outside of the trivial lesser reality that everything must on some level register through the mind at some point. Entrenchment in a position is not necessarily due to a lack of openness or internal fluidity, it can just as readily reflect staunch introspection weighed against all possibilities (which the 'entrenched, or so-called rigid person' already received and evaluated), still surmising thereafter to return to the resolve upon which it began, like a fitness check which determines its own confident enclosure PRECISELY due to its prior openness/exposure. Also equally analogous here: immune systems. Thus, the fundamental basis is arguably non-rigid, despite being labeled as rigid by these erroneous researchers. I know that this video maker has a rather vociferous contention towards 'post-modernism', but Hicks and Chomsky are pretty low-brow critics (a much better, albeit inadvertent, critic than these ostensibly 'brutal' figures could be found in the works of someone like Bridgman or Carnap--even though I disagree with them both, I can at least attest to their attempted intelligence). The video maker would do better to actually read the firsthand works of seminal post-modernists and understand that there is no blanketed disavowal of 'all objectivity'--only a rebuke against the types of formalizations seen in this video, those which unfairly attempt to (and so, mistakenly) subsume certain categories as wholly and impartially objective. Part of the problem, and this is not meant offensively, it's meant honestly, is that analytic-cognitivist types send to suffer from autism and so can't really think in less linear dynamics; the parrhesia of ambiguity and non-literalism borders on incomprehensible to them, and so they then bludgeon the premise without having understood its terms in the first place. All in all, this purported 'centrist victory' is just more of the same circularity we're all too used to seeing. Invent reality, then claim you won by your own 'empiric' terms. One last thing: Very strange that this guy supposedly likes Taleb. Based on this work, I can't imagine Taleb would be too fond of this guy.
I didn't read the paper but i'm assuming that the researchers were Americans. I'm an amateur in science and philosophy at best, however, it seems pretty clear to me that this cognitive rigidity does not hold true in the USA or Europe. In some specific ways it does in the European country i live, like some parties not willing to concede to lowering nitrogen in the air by drastically reducing factory farming, but i can't say that there is a lot of rigidity in EU countries at all afaik, just necessary healthy clash of ideas like it supposed to in a Democracy. In the US things are pretty clear; there are Democrats who want to make the long overdue effective policies, and the Republicans standing in their way. The voter base of the latter are the dumb radicals. A charlatan just have to make sentences with the words anti-woke, anti-abortion, gun-loving, family values etc. and they are going to vote for them because they are ignorant, racist, poorly educated, resentful and whole bunch of other degenerative characteristics. There goes not a single day by that i didn't find proof that solidified this fact.
what about people that dont consider themselves dems, reps or independent? if they just fall into the last category even if they are far left/right this might skew the results a bunch
@@Joseph-wc6qd If thats the case then a lot of leftists, bc they reject electoralism, would not be accuartely represented in the graphs, and in my hypothesis, skewing the results in a way where rigidity is more common on the "extremes", instead of correlating with more hierarchical beliefs
Yep, I didn't like how I joked about my own political leanings. I don't want to taint the research that is presented in what I believe to be an unbiased fashion with some quips that may call into question the veracity of what I am presenting :) .
