What about narcissistic people? Should we always agree that they are the best at everything? I mean it could make them sad if we say otherwise.

Or what about compulsive liars? Should we always accept what they say as truths?

What has narcisistic people to do with trans people and how invoking them in this debate has any meaning? 

I simply recognizing trans women as women really harmful in any way? I'm not even getting into more divisive debates, like whether they should be allowed in female sports just accepting their right to self-identify. Would that really be so bad?

It's not like being trans is some kind of personality disorder that's harmful in itself or needs to be controlled. There are documented cases of trans people existing in many cultures also. At this point, we should just acknowledge that it's a human condition like IDK, red hair? I can understand why society struggles with the implications of trans people existing, especially when so many of our core social structures, like family and marriage, are built on gender binarism. But at the very least, being civil toward trans people is something we should all agree on

As long as the trans person is acting civil back and not creating a scene because you accidentally misgendered them, then sure. We should all be civil.

I just think we should be civil to every person. Even the ones you disagree with politically. Its not easy, but its something we should all strive for.

Like with abortion. I just dont understand why some people cant see both sides of this issue. One side want women to have the choice to do with their bodies what they want and the other dont want soon-to-be people killed. Its ok to understand both sides and not have the answer for everything.

I do think it’s telling how the people who believe this is a win for the left, because “they all believe in facts or in a set truth/morale” or whatever else they claim, don’t realize that everyone believing in the same thing is the major feature in “cult” behavior, as others in this thread said the right is.

Cult thought processes do not allow for diversity of thought.

Correlating shared understanding with cult behaviour isn't saying much in itself. I'm sure almost everyone here believes the earth is round, but that doesn't make the uniformity around such belief "cult-like". It's just evidence based, so why would there be lots of deviation if the evidence points squarely at a clear answer?

I'd say cults are more defined by blind faith in ideas (sometimes just to be part of an accepted group), regardless of whether they cause more harm then good. Regardless of whether evidence supports it or not. By extension of this, A Cult-like thought process disregards evidence based systems to inform evolving strategies and behaviours.

Haha your response was far more comprehensive than mine at least, it's just it's not the first time I've seen this brain-dead interpretation of this study so I wanted to be as short as possible. And it definitely won't be the last.

Let me give you an example. The question is “Should Pedophilia be a criminal offense?”

Group 1(Non-pedophiles) will say yes, pretty much unanimously.

Group 2(pedophiles) will very likely give you a range of opinions.

By your definition Non-pedophiles are exhibiting cult-like behaviour and Pedophiles have a much better diversity of thought.

So, perhaps the value of “Diversity of thought” is determined entirely by the question and is not some universally positive thing.

A well-executed trap thread, curl-6.

At least that's what I would say if I were confident that you didn't believe in such nonsense yourself, and all because some left people on the internet said mean things to you.

Interesting research, the result is more or less what I would expect as a result although this is actually more severe than I initially though.
Just wonder how the study was done though, really easy nowadays to get to incorrect and biased conclusions depending on how the study/research was performed.