Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: is extremism only ever a political label, or is it really about the moment you stop letting other opinions count at all? In Room #897 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” the group traces extremism back from party politics to a psychological pattern — the “neural highway” that funnels every conversation back to one obsession, the difference between holding an extreme view and refusing to tolerate any other, and why a fact-checked TV scientist’s hedge words unraveled his own credibility. Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…
Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.
A very good morning to all of you. Today we’re continuing with the topic of extremism, and we want to look at the question of what extremist developments regarding opinions, attitudes, and movements can be observed. I’m really curious about the exchange with you. We’ve now picked up so many, many different topics, both technological developments and aspects on the societal level, political topics. And today we want to approach the term extremism once more. What is extremism for you, really? What’s behind it? That’s one thing we can open up, and the other is to look at what movements can currently be observed, and to what extent that might be considered under the aspect of extremist developments, and from what perspectives you’d want to include that. That’s roughly the direction of the topic. I’m curious, since the room can always take really surprising turns, depending on what thoughts, impulses etc. you bring in, and that’s how we shape the room together. So you’re very, very warmly invited, as every morning, to simply join and enter the exchange with your first thoughts on the topic, and in the exchange we then have the opportunity to keep spinning out different perspectives, thoughts, and thereby reflect on this term today for the room and sort our thoughts. For anyone joining, a quick reminder, the room is recorded the entire time and published afterward. That means if you join, you automatically agree to that. And we have three small room rules. First, a profile photo in which you’re recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. Whoever doesn’t want that for whatever reason, or wants to stay anonymous, can of course simply use the chat and share thoughts etc. in the chat. Yes, and with that I’ll gladly mute myself now and see who wants to open up the room with me this morning.
Yes, dear ones, how does it look? You know I wait until quarter past and then close the room again if nobody joins, so to speak. And once again, a reminder that we have the three small rules. First, a profile photo in which you’re clearly recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. Accordingly, I can only consider hand-raises that comply with the room rules. Otherwise you also have the option of entering the interaction via the chat, but I need at least one person to exchange a few thoughts with me here and contribute, so that we can turn the monologue into a dialogue. Because that’s the goal of the room, of Deep Talk, that together, by exchanging with each other, being in dialogue, we can also enable reflection, and it’s not about consuming content here — you can do that online too, we don’t need Deep Talk for that. So you’re very warmly invited to simply join and enter the exchange.
And with that I’d love to welcome dear Sabine this morning. Great that you’re joining.
Yes, good morning Yasemin. Then I’ll be the one, I guess. Even though this is a very, very difficult topic, because I think when extremism comes up as a topic today, everyone immediately thinks of a party. But I don’t want to tie it to that at all, because I think there are a lot of people today who are dissatisfied with something, and probably even for very valid reasons, and then simply say, okay, they can’t help me, they can’t help me, they can’t help me, then I end up there. And in that sense, I think that’s partly also a kind of hopelessness. Of course people should definitely also consider what they’re achieving with that. You see it now in Sonneberg with 20 percent and a corresponding district administrator seat. Yes, that was my — we have, I’m active in the chamber of commerce, in the general assembly. We also had a few assembly members, or still have, from that circle. And I had one, a very nice man, and I think you could also talk to him very well. And it was so extreme — whenever he showed up somewhere and said who he is and what he does, he’d immediately get such a shitstorm. I once stood next to him and he explained himself properly. And that’s of course also somewhat difficult.
Yes, wonderful, thank you so, so much for your first thoughts to approach the topic. And if we just look online, it says here, for example on Wiki, that extremism is a term used by authorities in Germany since about 1973 to designate political attitudes and endeavors that they classify as being on the outer fringes of the political spectrum, beyond the free democratic basic order. The term replaced “radicalism,” which had been common in official usage until then, and which is now used for political attitudes on the fringe but still within the democratic spectrum. The term, also in the form of extremism theory, is disputed in political science. And I find that really exciting, because you also immediately opened up a political thought. For me the question arises, already with the term extremism itself — is that always tied to politics, in quotation marks? Because extremism, well, the term itself implies it’s about extremes. And we observe extremes in everyday life not only regarding political positions necessarily, but also in many other places. And that’s why I picked up this question — what extremist developments regarding opinions, attitudes, and movements can be observed. That means, on one hand, of course, thought of politically, and on the other hand we might also, through the imprinting we have, the historical imprinting, always have a kind of pre-filter through which we view this term, in quotation marks. Especially when we talk about developments on the right, right-wing extremism. At the same time, I want to point out, also in the discussion, that there’s also a left-wing extremism on one hand, and on the other, what actually characterizes extremism, and to what extent can that also be observed on the societal level in many other places? And I’m really curious what you say about that, Sabine. How do you see it?
Well, I think I’d differentiate between extreme and extremism. Because a lot of people think extremely, and I mean our thought leaders too, if you look at someone like Elon Musk and so on, those are certainly extremes too. But would you count that as extremism? Certainly not. And yes, you also mentioned the left side just now. Yes, of course there are left-wing extremists too, but per the data, they don’t play as big a role. If they end up in the decimal-point percentage range, basically nobody’s interested in them, and I think there also has to be a certain reasonableness. If we don’t have growth in Germany, we also can’t go in that direction — I was once in the city center right during a demonstration, and it burned itself into my memory, the slogan was “everything for everyone, and for free,” and I think we simply can’t live like that. If everyone gets everything for free, where’s what we distribute supposed to come from?
Yes, an absolutely valid question, and yes, there are definitely many extremes. For me personally, extremism starts at the point where I no longer allow other opinions to count, for example. So I can be extreme in a certain attitude and so on, that’s one thing. The other is whether I still allow other opinions, thoughts, and attitudes at all, or whether I react to them in a completely hostile way, in quotation marks, in some form that expresses itself. And in that sense, for me extremism, or the preliminary stage of it, already begins with having an extreme attitude about something, the moment I no longer allow certain other opinions etc. And if we now just look at this again, detached from these “decimal points,” that means we often feel maybe not as threatened by a “left-wing movement” as by the “right-wing movement.” So I do get the impression that this also has something to do with how we’re simply historically shaped. Even though certain tendencies or certain developments that you can currently observe on the political level do go quite far into such extremes, which in my view certainly carry certain dangers, in quotation marks, that might not really be talked about, because awareness of it just hasn’t been sharpened that intensively at this point. And we’ve picked up various topics over the past days, and in that context you maybe can’t speak of extremism yet, but at least of extreme opinions, attitudes, and also movements taking place here, regardless of which topics we pick up — whether that was the corona policy that was pursued on one hand, then we currently have, for example, the climate topic being discussed with, you could say, absolute fear-mongering, quote unquote. Then we have the topic of gender-inclusive language, which is very, very controversial right now, where there are also many, many debates and discussions, but where you get the impression that it’s not really an exchange at all, but rather an always entrenched attitude and opinions, where the other side isn’t really allowed at all. Then we had the topic with the wars, arms deliveries etc. There too, we observe in many places this polarizing thing, which we also picked up in other rooms. That means whoever isn’t for something, whatever it is, is automatically against it. That means there’s also immediately a labeling and stigmatization happening. And that’s, from my point of view, already something that represents a certain creation of enemy images, so to speak. Or am I wrong about that, Sabine?
I fully agree with you on that. I see that often too, when I bring something up, and I don’t even mean in which direction. Even in customer conversations, immediately comes, well, where is this leading Germany, we should draw a line here, we should tighten things up here. So there are often very hostile statements, and then I always notice with my clients, “don’t touch it.” So if you approach such areas, you almost can’t have a proper discussion at all, because when such sentences are said, the opinions are already set in stone in that respect. I’m not going to change anyone there either. I fully agree with you on that. On the right-wing side, I also think they simply try to pull people along. You see that at the demonstrations too, where they are. There are people there who march along together. I think if you’d told them a few years ago, would this be the person you’d be following, they probably would have said, no way. But meanwhile so many things have come up that they say, yes, we’re against it. And I don’t know if people always know what exactly they’re against. So they’re against the thing where they are, that’s clear, but whether they know what they’re marching along with.
Yes, absolutely an important point you’re raising too, because we had exactly this in the exchange we had in the context of the room called The Rainbow Movement, which was also about this LGBTQ+ with all sorts of letters attached. And we talked about how, basically, there’s the original idea on one hand, and at the same time you can also observe that more and more letters keep being added, and the wider you cast that net, the more people come together under one roof who are for something. But this “being for something,” or for a kind of equality, can express itself in completely different ways, basically, and I think you even said that — if you look at who’s on the street at these parades, they’re totally different types of people, so to speak, where you can’t say for sure whether they actually stand for the same thing, in quotation marks, or whether they maybe understand something different by what they’re marching or moving along for. And I find it similar in this context you just raised, with this development and also the elections we’ve just been observing, that on one hand you can observe that it’s difficult right now to actually make a decision, who should I vote for, because somehow everyone is doing something the population apparently isn’t quite happy with, and at the same time there’s no real alternative, which apparently leads some people, either out of spite or whatever reasons are behind it, to actually vote for a right-wing movement, in quotation marks. And there are certainly different sides to that. Some maybe feel powerless and have the feeling that there definitely needs to be a change here. That’s maybe one thing. The other thing, and I also find this quite alarming, is when you look at various posts online. I don’t know every single one, and there are very different members in this party too. And there are a lot of different videos, and they do address topics where you get the feeling, yes, that’s actually quite reasonable, what’s being said there. But that actually has nothing to do, per se, with the political conviction or stance they represent, but rather a lot to do with the fact that taboo topics are being picked up, or topics are picked up where — and this is quite clever, in quotation marks — where they basically know that the population has exactly these “pain points.” But if you then look more closely at what this party actually stands for or similar, then your jaw should really drop at that point at the latest. So the question arises whether it’s really that reasonable to vote for a party here, regardless of which one, purely out of spite or something, that you ultimately vote for out of defiance or other reasons, but without actually standing behind the party’s actual positions. Sabine, what do you say to that?
Well, regarding what you just said about the rainbow movement versus right-wing extremism, I think a big difference is that with the rainbow movement, many people identify with it because they’re for something. They’re for more tolerance. There’s not really much against that, and so they come together and say, hello, I’m happy to join too, because I simply want my side to be represented as well. What we see on the other side is actually more “I’m against,” and for me this “I’m against” is always coupled with something — violence comes with it. We’re rising up. We no longer accept. And I fully agree with you that certainly there’s one thing or another where you simply say, well, he’s actually right. And when it comes from that direction, it just gets steamrolled, simply because it comes from there. That’s a bit sad. I fully agree with you on that. But we’re currently having mayoral elections here, and eight people ran in the first round. The problem is, one or another might have had a smart position, but they don’t stand a chance at all. Now we have the runoff, and it’s the CDU candidate against the SPD candidate. The CDU candidate was already the acting mayor today. Is anything going to change here? I don’t think so. And if you hear the slogans, the acting mayor says, we can have a better Mannheim. Great, wonderful. And the other one has all this stuff like progress and innovation, so it’s a bit sad, honestly. I’ve actually already considered whether I should even bother going for the runoff.
Yes, and I’d also like to pick up on a point you made, about this being for something on one hand, and being against something on the other. Yes, and at the same time, even with this being for something, in this case for example for tolerance, the question still arises — how far does the whole thing go? In this context, when we talked about it, we opened up aspects like, I don’t know, the draft laws that exist regarding gender-reassignment surgeries and so on, all the way to the idea that minors should get the possibility, in the future, to make a free decision here too, and if the parents don’t support that, that there’d also be the possibility of removing the child from the family and similar things. And in that sense, I think it’s not just a for-something movement, but it triggers chain reactions. And I don’t know who followed this — a few weeks ago there was also a huge discussion and an outcry among some parents. I don’t remember exactly which daycare it was, maybe it was in Berlin, I don’t remember exactly anymore. Namely, the parents were notified that they basically wanted to introduce a room where children would get the opportunity to explore their own bodies completely freely and undisturbed, including with each other, and they’d also broken down a whole list of rules about what’s allowed and what’s not allowed — something like, for example, that nothing may be inserted into body openings. We’re talking about children in daycare here. There was really a huge outcry over that, because for many parents that apparently just goes too far. So here it’s really worth looking at once more for more tolerance. But I think it’s similar to the discussions that have taken place and still take place, in the context of, for example, the idea of freedom. Freedom — we’re all certainly in agreement that we’re all for freedom, just as we’d all nod along to being for more tolerance. And at the same time, even with the idea of freedom, freedom always has to be thought of in a way that doesn’t restrict another person’s freedom, or cross boundaries, in quotation marks. And the same applies just as much to a rainbow movement as to other topics. So this isn’t limited to the rainbow movement alone, but quite generally. So whenever we discuss extreme opinions, attitudes, movements…
…we keep finding, and we’ve had this with many topics we’ve picked up, we keep noticing that it’s not just one side, but at least two sides, and usually even a lot of gray areas in between. And in that sense it makes sense to always look at topics more from multiple perspectives, opening up both opportunities and risks as well as interests, dangers and so on, in terms of aspects and perspectives, and also to consider in context what effects the whole thing has. Because it’s usually not just limited to the topic in relation to something specific, but consequently also has effects elsewhere. You mentioned the topic, I think you brought that up, Sabine, with the restrooms.
Yes, at school.
Yes, exactly. So that means there are a lot of ripple effects, so to speak, that you can consider. There have already been discussions regarding things like world championships etc., where currently there’s usually a distinction made, for example, between women’s sports and men’s sports, because, for example, the physical physiology is simply different. And what happens then if someone who, say, has themselves called differently every year, in quotation marks, do they then get the possibility to compete athletically with the other sex, or does that not apply? There are many discussions opened up here that also have relevance against the background of legal aspects. But also societally. There are also many things where we can and may rethink, but that also has to be discussed — something like restrooms, for example. You could of course also ask the question, why don’t we have, for example, no restroom separation at all, but shared restrooms? What speaks against it, if they’re simply individual and truly enclosed, so that nobody has access, so that you might not even differentiate the areas at all — but that might also have other disadvantages that result from it. And in that sense you can see that there are ripple effects in many places, effects, and that’s why it’s important not to view these topics in isolation from other aspects, but of course to have these discussions too, just as when we talk about AI and say, here there are both really massive opportunities and risks, and the topic or the technology per se isn’t positive or negative, but has a lot to do with what we make of it and do with it. And it’s similar with all these political matters, that you say per se, first of all, okay, there’s free thought, there’s a free movement on various topics and also various parties, so to speak, that stand up for themselves, for their opinion, and that’s then also ultimately limited at certain points, in the sense that when certain boundaries are crossed, so to speak, that has corresponding consequences. There were, for example, party bans in the past or similar — that’s where we’re at boundary crossings, so to speak, at this point. Do you have more thoughts on that, Sabine?
Yes, I wonder if that’s not also a bit culture-dependent, which cultural background I grow up in. Let me tie it to this — my son is coming back tomorrow, he did another host family exchange in Canada and was previously in a Filipino family. And the Filipino family, I think, didn’t accept that he might have his own opinion somewhere. I think in that cultural context, the children first grow up in a way where they have to accept a lot of what’s simply prescribed by the parents. He also had a Chinese host brother who found all of that quite okay. And I think if children grow up accordingly and say, I’m open to this and I want it this way and I don’t want it that way for my parents, then of course they already go in a completely different direction. But if I’ve only ever learned that this is how it’s done, how we do it at home, period, then of course that’s missing. And that’s maybe also a bit of what’s happening right now — a lot of people here grew up being allowed to be what they can be, what they want, also apart from that. And so we certainly diversify our opinions quite differently than in some other countries.
Yes, absolutely, that has a lot, a lot to do with culture at this point too, and with how we of course grew up. And already just looking from one generation to the next, there’s a huge, huge difference, in quotation marks. And that brings with it, well, has both advantages and disadvantages and also brings new challenges with it. So not to say one is good and the other is bad, but every generation, every culture has different aspects that ultimately get evaluated as positive or negative under different perspectives and considerations, and always seen contextually. In certain contexts it might be quite good to handle one thing or another the way it’s handled in other cultures, while in other contexts that might lead to restrictions of freedom or similar and bring disadvantages with it. And the same applies equally to our culture and to our way of thinking too, at this point. So if we just pick up the topic of upbringing or something — if I compare how we grew up in our families, so now regarding my siblings and me, and how it happens today, in the third generation here in Germany, that’s already a mega difference, but it also brings challenges with it, for example having to discuss everything. And sometimes it’s also quite nice not to discuss certain things. Or various boundaries here too — the child can also learn where it’s okay to discuss and when it’s also okay to just follow what’s been said and not test the boundaries again. And that plays a role in the societal context too. That’s not just within the family, but otherwise they debate at school and so on too. And it’s not always wanted or appropriate everywhere. So always this context-dependency again, of what’s appropriate where, in quotation marks. And that’s also a certain learning process at this point. And on one hand it’s important that we can and may voice opinions, thoughts etc. And on the other hand it’s sometimes also important, in certain contexts, to pause and maybe just follow the guardrails and not question everything. And I find that really exciting too. I don’t know what you’d say from your own experience, Sabine.
Yes, well, first I have to say I find it exciting too, because there are also directions or things coming from the kids where I initially just say, no, that’s not acceptable at all. And then I think, why not? So just switching the reframing standpoint. And I think that’s also a decisive point that’s missing in certain circles today — that’s tolerance in perspective-shifting, if you can put it that way. And the second thing you said, I also find a bit borderline sometimes, regarding school right now. I’m certainly not a fan of how education currently runs here in Germany. Nevertheless, I’m also not a fan of what sometimes goes on in schools today. Then the son or daughter doesn’t get a good grade, and what happens then? First the parents go there and say, that can’t be right at all. I experienced it myself in the parents’ council, how a teacher who was a top teacher got shot at, where a student, as class representative, really stood up and said, that’s not right at all. And that’s of course also a certain danger, because the question is, will the teacher continue like this tomorrow, or will he eventually say, well, do I have to put up with this, then I’ll just do the job by the book and not be a bit more progressive.
Yes, I’m totally with you on that. And it also reminds me — I’m always on the parents’ council too, because I think it’s important to contribute my own part there, both at daycare and at elementary school. And I’ve observed a lot there and at some point formed an opinion for myself. I really take my hat off to the teachers at this point. I personally have the impression that the parents are more exhausting than the kids — just by the way. And that partly aligns with what you just described. So, yes, and that also does something. And that’s also a point, for example, that’s described as a problem area, so to speak, or as a challenge for teachers in everyday life, actually dealing with that. And you can’t fulfill every wish or accommodate everything, in quotation marks. It needs — and we talked about this yesterday, I think it was in that room, or the day before — that on one hand it clearly needs an ability to reflect on things, to keep questioning your own position, and maybe also to step back from your own standpoint sometimes. And at the same time, with all the tolerance etc., it also needs, on the other hand, the fulfillment of the need for security, and that happens through routines, through guardrails and so on, rules that are built up, without going too far into over-bureaucratization, but we as humans feel comfortable in that too. And one of the most difficult things, for example, in child development, is when they don’t know at all what they can expect, in quotation marks, because today everything is somehow different than it’ll be again tomorrow, then that doesn’t feel good for children either. And in adulthood it’s the same, that’s also one of the reasons why we struggle so much with many changes, in quotation marks, because we simply don’t want to leave this comfort zone, so to speak, because our brain wants to save energy. And if we’re not existentially threatened, or don’t see a benefit in something for ourselves, then we don’t want to get moving in the first place, but rather want to stay in what’s familiar to us, in the structures we know, where we feel comfortable, where we’ve developed routines for everyday life, in order to be able to master challenges. We don’t want to leave that zone accordingly.
Exactly, so a really, really exciting topic, and there we’re back at the education topic, and thereby also at the overarching theme, where the education topic keeps coming up too. And not just thought of in relation to children and students, but really in the sense of future skills and mega-learning, that increasingly various abilities and skills are needed that go beyond pure knowledge or pure knowledge transfer. And for me this clearly includes, for example, the ability to reflect — really looking at topics on a meta-level, playing through various scenarios, considering what that means, like now with a topic like extremism, what’s actually hidden behind the term, what examples can we pick up, what are the commonalities or differences in the aspects we pick up, in order to then, against the background of this analysis, reflection, and weighing, generate insights for yourself again, which in turn aren’t set in stone, but can be changed again in the future with every new insight we gain and every experience we have, and at the same time this context-relation always has to be established again. That doesn’t mean per se that one thing is right and the other is wrong, but rather that you always have to think in connections again, in order to then make trade-offs and new decisions. Sabine, do you see this connection too?
Yes, certainly. There has to be a certain willingness to discuss. You have to have a certain tolerance. I mean, I see that in the field of education too, when I talk with others about it. Some say, the good old German school system, good general education, that’s quite important, we think that’s good. And I say, what comes out of it, I find that good too. So, I mean, I can’t immediately pull out the weapons and say, well, I can’t accept your opinion at all. One opinion is like the other. Okay, you have to discuss and then arrive at something. And that’s, I think, what’s a little missing on this extremism side. There’s no tolerance there. And the bad thing, of course, is that some people march ahead there. But the bad thing is that many people march along behind them and just say, I’m against it, without perceiving this reflection. And there too, those who follow along keep getting more extreme. That’s very concerning to me.
Yes, absolutely. And this following along, regardless of which movement we’re talking about at this point, has something to do with, and here we’re back at this education topic, that in the sense of self-determination, self-efficacy and life-competence, it’s really important and relevant, for example, to differentiate between what’s information and what’s actually knowledge, in quotation marks. So also to be able to critically question the things we consume, the things we read, also in the media, to have the possibility to also, at one point or another, where we deem it necessary, go into deeper research, and not just accept what we’ve heard from outside as “true.” And there we had, for example — it’s a shame Layla isn’t here today — in the climate discussion we had, she briefly referred to that TV program. I’ll gladly pick that up again in the summary, maybe, or in one of the other rooms, and had said that was great and we should definitely take a look at it sometime. There was also a climate researcher or a scientist there who said a few things about it, and it was really impressive. I actually did watch it, and I was a bit surprised, because there were a lot of contradictions on one hand, and also in the phrasing, which from my point of view isn’t scientific at all — when you say something like, for example, “I’m certain” and “probably XYZ,” then you’ve already completely undermined yourself in one sentence, so to speak, with “I’m certain” and “probably.” And being sensitized to this, for example, and not just accepting and adopting whoever is presented to me on TV as an expert, scientist, or whatever, but really diving into the depths here. And afterward, after watching the program, I thought, something’s not right here. I find that somehow — I don’t want to say he’s not a scientist, he’s certainly a scientist in his field. But nevertheless, the statements he made weren’t necessarily 100 percent fact-based. You could already tell from the language alone, because he kept hedging a lot too. And in the end it was about contract compliance regarding this Paris Agreement that was made, where I then ask myself, do we want to comply with the numbers now, or is it about climate protection? So a lot of question marks come up, and that also has a lot to do with education again, regarding learning, so to speak, on one hand to be sensitized, to already spot mismatches in language, then to formulate question marks, so to speak questions, in order to find answers or new possible answers for myself, then to go into corresponding research, in order to then also open up other positions on it and look at them. I’ve even prepared various links and so on, and have them ready, waiting for the opportunity when Layla is in the room again, so I can share them in the chat accordingly, to open up counter-positions here too, in quotation marks, and to give the opportunity to really open up and look at other perspectives here again. And I find that really important, and that’s where we’re at this education topic. That means we tend to too quickly accept something we hear or see or read as given, so to speak, instead of really getting behind it with questions, and having already internalized this as a kind of thought-juggling, so to speak. It’s not about whether that’s right or wrong now, but always meeting the topic with questions, so to speak.
A very good morning.
Did I trigger something?
No, no, no. I just didn’t know — I have a certain aspect, and unfortunately I had to step out in the meantime. I have an aspect about extremism that I keep recognizing, because for me extremism is a heightened, well, some form of obsession. And I don’t know if you addressed this, but for me extremists can be recognized by the fact that they’ve gotten worked up into something somewhere, and they manage, no matter which topic you bring up, to lead it back to their topic, the one they’re obsessed with. So within minutes, in a conversation about birds, it can suddenly turn into xenophobia, vaccine refusal, or whatever, regardless of the topic, but if someone has such a topic, then that happens super, super fast, and there are, some neural pathways, like a main highway, planted in their brain, so that whatever you want to convey ends up on this road and gets funneled into it. And I just wanted to mention that, that was for me a crystal-clear identifying feature — if you’ve had three, four, five conversations and then say, we just had four different topics, and every time we ended up back at that topic. Are you aware that you’re leading every topic back to this topic too? I just wanted to point that out.
Yes, a really, really cool point you’re making, and while you were telling that, I was immediately reminded of a person for whom that actually applies. So I can exactly relate to what you mean.
Yes, an exciting point, I think, absolutely. And that’s a nice sign. You described it so nicely, this “no matter which topic we talk about, it always gets led back to a certain other topic.” And yes, that’s definitely a point. The question, and there we can also pick up again what Sabine said, she’d differentiated earlier between extreme — representing an extreme opinion, for example — and extremism in the heightened form, so to speak. That doesn’t necessarily mean, because the person, for example now with the person I was thinking of, I wouldn’t classify as “dangerous” or similar, but they’re really “obsessed” with certain thoughts. And that leads to every topic, regardless of which topic, ending up, being led to these thoughts they have in this other context. And these topics obviously occupy them very, very strongly. And nevertheless, we can also open up this differentiation again, as I said. That means it becomes clear that there’s a difference, a distinction, between being extreme in opinions, attitudes, thoughts, and nevertheless maybe not always necessarily deriving a danger from that, in quotation marks. Nevertheless the danger does exist, in quotation marks, because every extremism originally has an extreme standpoint, so to speak, and a hardening that then, similar to when we think of conflict stages or something, starts relatively harmlessly, but once it escalates and builds up, from a certain stage a reversal becomes difficult, because then it’s simply just a “lose-lose situation,” in quotation marks. And you can imagine it similarly here, basically. Sabine, would you like to add to that?
Well, I like the image of Erdal with the highway, and I think we also see that very often in political speeches, that we also always see it going in a circle, and then it breaks off again, and it breaks off again. Things get coupled together that actually have nothing to do with each other, because that’s probably exactly where the turn-off onto the highway has been reached. I just asked myself, in this context, whether we’re already going slightly extreme in the direction of education, because that’s also always the topic we keep coming back to.
Yes, we do. But we do that, among other reasons, because it keeps coming up. So not just here today, but from different people and so on. That’s actually happened, I don’t know — I don’t know if that’s maybe the interests we also have, partly, or maybe also groups of people who are partly involved, for example teachers etc. Or also the fact that we ourselves sometimes have children too. And for quite a while now you can observe that it actually keeps coming up, and meanwhile it’s also being quite deliberately opened up again, in order to re-establish this connection, because it has something to do with the overarching theme, for example.
Exactly, maybe that’s also a form of extremism. Shall we move into the closing round for today with that?
I’d say we still have seven minutes. That actually fits quite well. You’re welcome to make further connections if you want. And then we can gladly wrap up with a highlight or similar for today.
Should I say something?
Yes, go ahead.
Okay, Marc is still here, he surely has something to say about that too. I’d be surprised if Marc didn’t have anything to say about this. But I can go ahead and wrap up. So actually I didn’t want to come on stage this morning for this topic at all, because it’s actually a topic I find a bit difficult. Nevertheless, I think it was very interesting to think about it again, because the problem I currently see is that everyone already accepts it. We have this growth in some, I mean less on the Western side than on the Eastern side. But you see how quickly that can also flip. I also watched the discussions on TV after the election, about how something like this could happen. Well, you make it very easy for yourself, you just blame national politics. Is that so? I don’t know.
Yes, otherwise a great topic again — the one with the highway, Erdal, was certainly the highlight today. That’s a good one to keep in mind. Thank you and have a nice day.
Yes, wonderful. Thank you so, so much. Erdal?
My highlight was the plea for education viewed as extremist. That made me smile, thinking, okay, there are characteristics, but I would think the next stage of extremism, namely the despair based on truth that leads to even more extreme acts, because you say, people just don’t see it, because my topic is so important and I’m desperate, so I have to do something even more extreme to shake them awake. I don’t think there have been education-related attacks yet, but with a caveat there too, but nevertheless, I view the plea for education as a positive extremism, if it is extremism at all. Thanks.
Wonderful, thank you so, so much. Yes, dear ones, it was really exciting again. Thank you so, so much for these different perspectives we were able to open up together today, with the various examples we also chose for it. I leave it up to you to let it resonate, to make decisions for yourselves once more regarding “where do I personally stand on this term or on the examples that were opened up today.” And that’s also always, to some extent, the personal touch we bring in here too, against the background of the experiences we’ve had, how we feel about certain topics. And we’re always allowed to re-examine our thoughts and maybe also shift our own standpoint slightly through reflection. But in which areas that is and how you want to shape that is entirely up to you. And yes, and I’m really looking forward to continuing tomorrow with confidence and hope. Because that fits with what Erdal just said too, this — especially when we build the bridge from this extremism to confidence and hope. Extremism can also arise from a kind of powerlessness or desperation or similar. And it can be all the more important to always have confidence and hope too. That’s why we now want to look next at what significance confidence and hope have in times ranging from mild unease to panic-level fear, which is what we’ll deal with tomorrow. And I’m really looking forward to that, and we’ll then transition with this topic to the author’s breakfast on Sunday with Heike Wolfangel, namely with “Love Builds Careers — how to build, easily and powerfully, the career you’ve always wanted, even if you don’t yet know where your journey should lead.” And in that sense I’m really curious about the development we’ll bring, content-wise, on this path toward the author’s breakfast. You’re very, very warmly invited to join again tomorrow morning, and I’m really curious which direction the room will develop together with you tomorrow. In that sense, tomorrow morning at 8 again, and I look forward to hearing you. Until then, ciao!
