Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Liza. I don't know that there is a
whole lot more need to comment further on most of what we've been
discussing; however, I'll address the main new issues you brought up,
though briefly, as I'm getting tied up with other projects right now.

Regarding my use of the psychological terms "predisposition,"
"susceptibility," etc., that gave you some shivers: I had no idea these
were current (possibly misused) buzzwords in the field. I am a believer in
trying to keep things in as common language as possible, and was attempting
to come up with common everyday terms on my own and stay away from big
words in finding terms to fit the concepts. In looking at fanaticism, I've
mainly been musing about the subject by my lonesome coming up with
terminology.

Actually, I would be interested if you know of any mainstream psychological
works or theories on the subject of extremism, just to see what "the
conventional wisdom" is supposed to be. I have Eric Hoffer's book "The True
Believer," but found it of very little help, and when I have tried to look
for commentary on the net or elsewhere, most of it seems geared to cult
psychology, which has its uses, but does not seem to address very well the
issue of those who don't physically join a close-knit cult commune nearly
as well. (As am aside: A very good recent book I might recommend if one is
interested in the psychological appeal of authoritarian belief systems in
general, however, is "The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power," by
Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad. It starts with a look at the guru/disciple
phenomenon which has been more prevalent in America since the 1960s--Kramer
was himself a well-known yoga teacher in the 1970s/early 1980s who could
have gone the guru route, but opted out of it--and then extends the
analysis to fundamentalisms of many different kinds including new-age and
12-step fundamentalisms, etc.)

Yes, it's my impression too (although I'm no expert) that the current trend
in psychology is to try to reduce everything relating to mind to
biochemical causation, and find drug cures for every known mental bad
feeling. (Seemed there for awhile as if half the nation was on Prozac, eh?
:-\ ) While it certainly is obvious chemistry affects the mind in a big
way, I think it is overlooked or glossed over too much that mind also can
induce chemical effects. Even if the mind as a whole is made up of nothing
but biochemical reactions, still, the mind as we subjectively experience it
(working as a whole) sure seems capable at least to some degree of
unpredictably (via will) influencing chemical output in the brain in its
own right, "causing" it to take different directions under the influence of
will.

I don't much agree with the current overly reductionistic trend that (when
taken to its logical conclusion, as it seems some are wont to do) seemingly
denies independent will, volition, creativity, etc., and says they are only
effects of hidden underlying mechanistic biochemical causes. I am not sure
this is the end state that neurobiologists are actually working towards,
because it seems we rarely hear the underlying premises debated with any
candor, but it often looks that way. To my mind, reductionism can only take
one so far, then you have to start looking at system-level effects for
causation (i.e., one's own will, creativity, etc.) The question or "koan" I
always like to pose for those who want to reduce mind, volition, or will
purely to hidden involuntary effects of biochemistry (just behaviorism in
another guise) is: "So! Then your very own scientific work is also not
creative or done under your own volition, then--is that what you are
saying?!" :-)

I think what bothers me most, though, about this whole thing, including the
tendency to say get extreme in saying all of a person's behavior patterns
can ultimately be traced back to early childhood experience or biochemistry
is the free will vs. determinism issue, nature vs nature, genes vs.
experience, individual self-determination vs. unconscious genetic (and/or
early childhood determinism). What about the influence of later experience,
and just plain ole freedom of choice in behavior? I don't think hardly
anyone except the most dyed-in-the-wool behaviorist or neurobiologist is
going to maintain that we don't have some free will. And that brings up the
question that I think is most important when discussing fanatics: after we
account for all the possible influencing factors such as childhood
experience, later experience, etc., do they have a choice whether to be a
fanatic or not? Those who become fanatics probably don't even consciously
experience it as a choice. However, those who don't or who grew out of it,
do experience it as a choice at some point? Were the ones who became
fanatics "predestined" to become so given their backgrounds? Could they
have turned out different given their experience, or not? That's what's
interesting to me.

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>