Predictive radicalization claims rest on only ten cases

Evidence

Based on data from a grand total of ten cases, the report states that there is “remarkable consistency in the behaviors and trajectory of each of the plots across the stages” and that “this consistency provides a tool for predictability.” Theories like this are used to justify the kind of human mapping program discussed earlier, where infiltrators were sent to bookstores, community centers, mosques, and other “hot spots” where Muslim citizens and immigrants spend their time. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 593

Categorization

• XREF: The n=10 basis echoes Sageman’s own debunking and directly undermines any evidence-based rationale — connects to the vault cluster’s ‘manufactured threat’ claims. — connects to: No single factor robustly drives radicalization across the sampled extremist cases — Ryan Andrew Brown, Todd C. Helmus, Rajeev Ramchand, Alina I. Palimaru, Sarah Weilant, Ashley L. Rhoades, and Liisa Hiatt (RAND Corporation), Violent Extremism in America:…, 319; Algorithmic-radicalization narratives may overstate causation since most frustrated users stay moderate — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 387; The Danat-radicalization result survives many robustness checks. — Sebastian Doerr et al., Financial Crises and Political…, 39