The <scp>Existential‐Phenomenological</scp> Situation of Ideological Extremism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this essay Steven Zhao provides an existential‐phenomenological account of radicalization and extremism. This elaboration is in response to what Zhao perceives to be the two problematically dominant perspectives of discourse on radicalization: the ideational perspective and the psychological perspective. The ideational perspective is risky because it offers an incomplete understanding of radicalization by presuming that it is the expression of cognitive errors. The psychological perspective, on the other hand, excessively individualizes radicalization as an exceptional psychological aberration that can riskily result in instructivistic preventative approaches in education. Zhao proposes the existential‐phenomenological elaboration as a supplemental articulation of radicalization that has potential to address the issues associated with these two dominant perspectives. According to this elaboration, ideological extremism is a relational phenomenon that constitutes a “dysfunctional” structure of intersubjectivity. Applying interrelated notion of subjectivity and intersubjectivity illuminates radicalization in a way that both widens the scope of ideational attributions/corrections and transcends the individualistic confines of psychopathology/psychological resilience. Ultimately, this elaboration seeks to enrich educational approaches to addressing radicalization such that preventative strategies are informed by the relational foundations intrinsic to both cognitive and psychological motivations of extremist behaviors and beliefs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".