Vulnerability to Trends to Thinking Radically Among High School Students in Sukabumi District

: This study aims to reveal the vulnerability of high school students in Sukabumi district to the tendency of their approval of some of the initial ideological surfaces of radical groups in Indonesia so that it is hoped that when the potential vulnerability of this agreement is known, detection and mapping of the characteristics of thinking can be carried out students there. The approach used in this study was quantitative, using a survey method with a sample of 692 students. The data collection technique used was a questionnaire, which the researcher saves in a Google form, and the data analysis technique used is the descriptive statistic technique. The result showed that, in general, the vulnerability of their thinking tendencies is divided into two types: the vulnerability to religious radicalism and the vulnerability to non-religious radicalism. In the type of vulnerability to religious radicalism it is further divided into three types where the first is the tendency of radical terrorism thinking in the name of religion, with 100 respondents, or 14.45% had a low category, 491 respondents or 70.95% being in the moderate category, and 101 respondents or 14.59 % in the high category. Second, the type of vulnerability to the tendency to think radically in the aspect of thinking where 77 students or 11.12%, have a low category, 498 students or 71.96%, are in the medium category. As many as 117 students, or 16.90%, are in the high category. In the third type, namely vulnerability to violent radical thinking tendencies, 76 students or 10.98%, are in a low category, 508 students, or 73.41%, are in the medium category, and 108 students or 15.60%, are in the high category. Meanwhile, in the type of non-religious radicalism, the vulnerability of thinking shows that 97 students or 14.01% are in a low category, 488 students or 70.52%, are in the medium category, and as many as 107 students or 15.46%, are in the high category.


Introduction
Education at the senior high school level is a very complex task because it must be able to educate individuals who are starting to have thoughts about the ideals of life and are about to enter the adult phase (Candra & Leona, 2019).Therefore, senior high school education is expected to be able to become an institution that can direct each student to positive thoughts and behavior, to make each individual useful for himself, society, nation and state (Anam, 2019).However, the problem is that the existing high school level is a comfortable place for understandings prohibited from developing, one of which is radicalism.It is evidenced by data which states that 23.3% of high school students agree with the caliphate state (Lubis, 2021).Then according to the Institute for Islamic Studies and Peace (in Saihu and Marsiti, 2019) states that 50% of students agree to radical action.Besides that, Peter (2020) mentioned that the spread of radicalism at the high school level was so massive that it could even enter the classroom.This is also further strengthened by looking at the trend of radicalism at home and abroad in the past few years which shows that the involvement of young people, including those at high school age, has a very massive involvement.For example, data showing that the terror incidents involving the Bali I and II bombings, the Kuningan bombing, the bomb in front of the Australian embassy, the bomb at the Cirebon Police Mosque, the bomb at the Sepuh Solo Bible Church directed the perpetrators at a young age starting from 17-35 years old.In addition, in foreign countries such as England, there are also a number of radical actors aged 17 and 19 years (Sya'roni, 2019).This indicates that currently the ideology of radicalism has quite a strong appeal for high school age.
Looking at various research developments on radicalism among high school students, a lot has indeed been done.For example, research that discusses how the conceptderadicalization program carried out through the education curriculum in Indonesia (Saputra & Mubin, 2021).Then research which discusses how a religious moderation education design can become a shield for the entry of radicalism in educational institutions (Faruq & Noviani, 2021).Then there is also research that discusses how to empower student organizations to be able to counteract radicalism in schools (Hidayat et al., 2021).The various existing studies it show that the development of radicalism research in high schools currently focuses on handling that is carried out directly without looking at the understanding characteristics of the subject to be treated.Therefore, this study will provide a new study of how high school students' characteristics affect the early surface ideology of several radical groups in Indonesia.The focus of this research was carried out among high school students in Sukabumi.It is done because research states that Sukabumi is often a terrorist nest (Yunus, 2017).Besides that students in high schools in Sukabumi, Solo and Padang are students who are most easily incited by radicalism (Iqbal, 2020).It is hoped that when the characteristics of this agreement are known, a mapping can be made of the tendency to think radically that exists in the subject so that later it can provide a reference for thinking in designing appropriate solutions and handling because it is by the characteristics of the thinking that develops.

Research Method
This study used a quantitative approach with a survey method developed by Creswell (Creswell, 2012).In particular, this study aims not to represent the Sukabumi district but to discover the vulnerability of radical thinking tendencies in the area.This research was conducted for 7 (seven) months, from June to December 2021.The population in this study were all high school students in Sukabumi, totaling 34,945 students.Then, to determine the sample, a probability sampling technique with a 5% chance of error using the Slovin formula was used to obtain a sample of 395 students.However, to be more comprehensive, the number of samples was larger, namely 692 students.The choice of probability sampling technique using the Slovin formula is aimed at being able to conduct research quickly but still be able to find the expected research objectives because the purpose of this research is not to represent Sukabumi district but only to detect and obtain the characteristics of students thinking vulnerabilities.
The data in this study were obtained by distributing questionnaires to respondents.The questionnaire in this study was made based on radical indicators compiled by the Indonesian National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT) which included Intolerance, Takfiri, Rejecting the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, and Rejecting Pancasila.Then from

Results and Discussion
Level of Radicalism Tendency Among Students of Sukabumi High School Measurements were made on 692 respondents with the following distribution.The problem of radicalism is something that must be taken seriously because even though a few individuals have vulnerabilities, that does not mean they are not dangerous.According to the Differential Association theory, human life is very dynamic, especially in terms of socialization and knowledge sharing, so the possibility of spreading understanding from one individual to another is not impossible when the intensity of their interaction is high (Guntara, 2018).Especially if we see that high school students are very vulnerable and often become the target of radical diaspora, so often the potential for the spread of radicalism in high school will be very massive (Peter, 2020).
So that the results of this study can be analyzed in more depth to see the potential and vulnerability of radicalism, the calculation of the questionnaire is not only carried out for all statements but also calculations will be carried out for several selected items grouped according to the ideology of several radical groups in the field.Because groups were declared radical by the government but only agreed on a few items in the questionnaire the researchers made, the various groups would not be detected if the calculations were only made for all items.Therefore, from the 692 respondents who filled out several calculations to match their agreement with the ideology of the radical groups in the questionnaire, there may be respondents who have more than 1 group vulnerability.
Then, after the vulnerability to some of these groups has been obtained, the characteristics of radical understanding will be grouped again into several types according to the main point of the problem so that these groupings have value in designing the handling of radicalism in the field.There are several types of vulnerability to radical thinking divided into two: the tendency to think radically related to religion and the tendency to think radically non-religiously.The division of these two types makes it easier to formulate a solution strategy because the researcher hypothesises that religious radicals have different factors from non-religious radicals.Religiously radical tendencies are more caused by fanaticism towards their religion, so any statement that can maintain the existence of their religion will tend to be chosen.At the same time, non-religious radicals tend to be caused by critical thinking caused by disappointment with psychological or structural conditions.Therefore, it will be more effective if the handling of each of these types is differentiated, making it easier to map out the solution.

1) The Tendency of Religious Radical Thought
In this religiously radical type, the researcher distinguishes it into three types where these three types follow the development of radical groups in Indonesia.The three types are as follows.

a) The Trend of Terrorist Radical Thoughts in the Name of Religion
The tendency of radical terrorist thoughts in the name of religion is the type of radical that society is most afraid of because often, the end of its ideology is a bombing, which can cause death and great damage.This group acts in the name of religion in carrying out their actions where they think a religious understanding that is different from what they profess is a wrong religion.The only way to uphold a straight religion is in a way that they think is right, including exterminating and killing people with different understandings.The initial sign of the characteristics of this type of radicalism is that they feel that only their Islamic religious sect is the most justified by Allah (Asrori, 2019;Zhussipbek, 2013), then misleads adherents of different religious sects (Asrori, 2019;Zhussipbek, 2013).
All statement items in this research instrument were based on this ideological understanding.Although not comprehensively, the indicators compiled indicate the initial surface of this understanding.The indicators compiled are Intolerance, Takfiri, Rejecting the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, and Rejecting Pancasila.The results showed that in this typology, there were 100 respondents or 14.45%, who had a low category, 491 respondents or 70.95% had a medium category, and 101 respondents or 14.59% had a high category.Even though only 101 respondents, or 14.59%, had a high category, the number needed to be higher.Because as previously explained, the potential for vulnerability to radicalism is a serious problem.The reason is that if this potential vulnerability is brought together with radical groups that have the same ideology, it will be hazardous because the factors for committing violence are complete.Some literature explains that a person can carry out acts of radicalism caused by push and full factors.The push factor is also known as the potential in a person, be it an emotional or structural state that causes a person to have radical potential.At the same time, the full factor is an organization that recruits in radical actions (Asrori, 2019).Therefore, if this potential vulnerability (push factor) is brought together with the organization that is recruiting (full factor), and both have a similar understanding, then the factor for the individual is complete.Some literature explains that a person can carry out acts of radicalism caused by two factors called the push factor and the full factor.The push factor is also known as the potential in a person, be it an emotional or structural state that causes a person to have a radical potential.At the same time, the full factor is an organization that recruits in radical actions (Asrori, 2019).Therefore, if this potential vulnerability (push factor) is brought together with the organization that is recruiting (full factor), and both have a similar understanding, then the factor for the individual is complete.It is explained in some literature where a person can carry out acts of radicalism caused by the push factor and the full factor.Push factor is also known as the potential in a person, be it an emotional or structural state that causes a person to have a radical potential.At the same time, the full factor is an organization that recruits in radical actions (Asrori, 2019).
Therefore, if this potential vulnerability (push factor) is brought together with the organization that is recruiting (full factor), and both have a similar understanding, then the factor for the individual is complete.Push factor is also known as the potential in a person, be it an emotional or structural state that causes a person to have a radical potential.At the same time, the full factor is an organization that recruits in radical actions (Asrori, 2019).Therefore, if this potential vulnerability (push factor) is brought together with the organization that is recruiting (full factor), and both have a similar understanding, then the factor for the individual is complete.Push factor is also known as the potential in a person, be it an emotional or structural state that causes a person to have a radical potential.In contrast, the full factor is an organization that recruits in radical actions (Asrori, 2019).Therefore, they have a similar understanding if this potential vulnerability (push factor) is brought together with the recruiting organisation (full factor).The factor for the individual is complete.
In addition, this vulnerability becomes higher because radical groups will process this potential with various narratives and follow-up understandings so that someone who has potential will be like a lost individual who is then met with someone who shows a way.As for this advanced understanding, for example, the potential for takfiri thinking will be followed by the understanding that Muslims who do not share their views are Muslim disbelievers, that is, they mistakenly believe that all other Muslims must be exterminated (Zhussipbek, 2013).Then another advanced understanding, namely the understanding of al wala bal bara, namely they will identify and separate which are friends and which are enemies where people of different religions and understandings are opponents and become targets of jihad.There is also a further notion of jihad where according to them jihad is not only offensive and defensive but more broadly to restore the sovereignty of God which has been usurped.This means getting rid of and fighting anything that hinders the enactment of God's law from all aspects of life.They will indoctrinate that the law of jihad to fight the enemies of Islam is obligatory for everyone.Then this doctrine is coupled with martyrdom where if those who struggle to uphold everything will die gloriously and get heaven (Asrori, 2019).

b) Vulnerability to Radical Thinking Tendencies in Thinking Aspects
In several theoretical limitations regarding radicalism, the tendency of these limits leads to acts of violence and even murder in upholding an ideology.However, on the ground, many groups are declared radical.However, they do not agree with acts of violence because their focus is more on preaching and recruitment so that many people accept their understanding.Likewise, according to Dannreuther & March (2010), there are radical groups that advocate violence, but some do not because the focus of radicalism is softer on thought movements.According to them, violence only damages the image of Islam itself as a good religion (Shofwan, 2016).However, in reality, this type of thinking also has a big risk in bringing down a country because, in the end, the thoughts of every individual no longer agree with the rules and policies made by the government.An example of this type of radical group is Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI).Radicalism originating from this organization can be regarded as a radical organization that does not legitimize violence.There is no evidence yet that this organization is the perpetrator of violent radical acts.He focuses on spreading understanding gently by preaching education and mass mobilization.HTI occasionally joins other groups in organizing large demonstrations, the main focus being on recruiting and developing a solid cadre base (Akbarzadeh & Mansouri, 2007).Some of the initial surface characteristics of this group's thinking are rejecting the NKRI.Because the law that is being implemented is not God's law, the desire to replace the NKRI that stands today with another form that, according to him, is better, the law in Indonesia must be replaced with Islamic law even though many people disagree, reject the motto Bhinneka Tunggal Ika, do not want to obey Pancasila because the ideology is not sourced from the Al-Qur'an and Hadith, the ideology of Pancasila is no longer suitable, want to replace Pancasila ideology, and assume that obedience can only be done to something that comes from God through Al-Qur'an and Hadith (Shofwan, 2016) If we look at the research data, the results show that the characteristics of the respondents' agreement on understanding this group show that 77 students or 11.12% have a low category.As many as 498 students, or 71.96%, are in the medium category, and as many as 117 students, or 16.90 %, have a high category.Then if the calculations are seen from each item in this typology, the statement has a high vulnerability where the agreement of more than 100 respondents shows that 32 respondents chose to agree strongly and 118 respondents chose to agree on the item "the current form of the Indonesian state is a misguided state form because it is based on the results of human thought, not on God's provisions.As for the items with an agreement, under 100 respondents who agreed were in the item "Unity in Diversity should not be practised in everyday life", where 15 respondents chose to agree strongly and 60 chose to agree.Then, the item "Obeying Pancasila is a misguided act because obedience to human products is not to God's provisions" where two people voted to agree strongly and 63 people voted to agree.
Although the data above cannot be known whether the causal factor is because they have a strong understanding because they are affiliated with radical groups or because they do not have knowledge, they choose to agree on this item.Nevertheless, the characteristics of the data above have high vulnerability.Even though the reason students agreed was that questions carried them away and they did not know about this matter, it showed that students were easily carried away by negative narratives so that if a radical group was diasporaizing their understanding, it would easier to get approval.This is, of course, very vulnerable to the massive approval of radical thoughts (Akbarzadeh & Mansouri, 2007).It is certainly to watch out for though the students tend radical views which are not as extreme and softer as what HTI does, these groups can still threaten the integrity of the country because they can damage the state ideology, which the nation's successors must uphold (Rani, 2017).

c) Vulnerability to Violent Radical Thinking Tendencies
The vulnerability to this tendency to understand is because there are several groups that are declared radical because they fulfill one of the radical indicators according to the BNPT, namely intolerance, especially in their violent actions.In the development of contemporary radical movements in Indonesia, there are groups that are similar to this type of radical.For example, one group has an understanding that the socio-cultural situation of Indonesian society is far from Islamic law which is characterized by many immoral acts, gambling, drinking and drugs with that argument being human rights (HAM).Then they are also of the view that the role of the state is very weak in controlling various immoral acts, so that Muslims must help to overcome the immorality that occurs (Huda, 2019).Therefore, many actions have been carried out by this organization, starting from forcing the closure of entertainment venues, sweeping liquor, raiding commercial sex workers, beating people who are not fasting, closing places of worship to other movements that use violence (Rubaidi, 2011).At first glance, this ideology has no faults, but when viewed from its implementation in the field, the intolerant actions that have been carried out cannot be tolerated.In fact, in some of the most recent cases in 2021, many members of this group have become allegiance to the ISIS group due to the common perception of this intolerant movement (CNNIndonesia, 2021).Therefore, if there is agreement from individuals towards the tendency of intolerance that leads to violence then of course it cannot be ignored, because apart from being a radical type like this that is so vague, violence in any form cannot be justified in the context of SARA.
Let's look at the characteristics of the respondents' approval of the radical type who approves of this violence.The calculation based on the respondents shows that there are 76 students or 10.98% who have a low category.As many as 508 students or 73.41% are in the medium category and as many as 108 participants students or 15.60% have a high category.Then, suppose the calculation is seen from each item in the statement with high vulnerability where the agreement is more or close to 100 respondents.In that case, it shows that 18 respondents chose to agree strongly, and 80 respondents chose to agree on the statement item "Violence to negate various worship practices originating from Islamic schools of thought."which is different from what I believe is permitted by Islam, " then on the item "Must be tough to make all people in Indonesia Muslim" there were 30 respondents who chose to agree and 91 respondents chose to agree strongly, then on the item "Must be tough to negate religious diversity in Indonesia" there were 23 respondents who agreed, and 62 respondents chose to agree, then on the item "Must reject strongly in advancing cultural diversity that is contrary to Islam" 77 respondents were choosing to agree strongly and 195 respondents choosing to agree.For items that have little approval in the sense that far below 100 respondents choose to agree with the item "Violence against people of different religions should not be done" there are only nine respondents who choose to agree strongly, and 19 respondents choose to agree so that the item is in the low category.
Therefore, this needs to be a joint concern in handling it because even though they support the form of the Indonesian state, it still has a danger.After all, these radical groups approve of violence.One of the radical groups of this type is the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI).Rubaidi (2011) stated that even the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), which supports the Indonesian state with the motto of moral revolution, actually has a higher level of radicalism than other Islamic movement groups in Indonesia.Where FPI carried out radical actions carried out by FPI starting from closing places of worship to using violent methods (Rubaidi, 2011).

2) Vulnerability to Non-Religious Radical Thinking Tendencies
In several contexts of radicalism and terrorism in Indonesia, these problems are not only caused by matters related to religion.However, it can also be caused by non-religious matters such as dissatisfaction with psychological and structural conditions.In the Indonesian context, the government declared this type radical because its movement fulfilled the radical indicators compiled by the BNPT, namely rejecting the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia and rejecting Pancasila.One of the groups with this type of radicalism is the Armed Criminal Group (KKB) in Papua and the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI).
In this context, the KKB is a radical group because it fulfills one of the indicators, namely rejecting the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (Sianturi et al., 2020).The reason is that this group does not have too much difference from ISIS in its pattern of movement; namely, they both use violence and terror due to feelings of rejection of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.However, for the ISIS group, the feeling of rejection is more motivated by religious motives, which; according to them, the current Indonesian government does not implement Islam and even distances them from this religion (Asrori, 2019).Feelings of dissatisfaction cause the Armed Criminal Groups to want to separate themselves.Therefore, these two groups are highly vulnerable to danger, at least when someone rejects the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.The tendency can cause feelings of dislike or rejection so that whatever is instructed becomes difficult to obey and filled with suspicion.
Meanwhile, in the radical context of the PKI, this group was declared radical because it fulfilled one of the radical indicators according to the BNPT, namely rejecting Pancasilaand want to replace it with another ideology (Indra et al., 2017).The PKI group and the ISIS/Al-Qaeda group have similarities in pattern, the similarity is that the ISIS and Al-Qaeda groups think deeply rooted so they conclude to replace state ideology with Islamic ideology.Meanwhile, the PKI thought that taking root to replace Pancasila's ideology was not motivated by religion but through their rationalization.However, basically both of them have the same pattern, that is, they both think rooted to replace the ideology of the Indonesian state.Therefore, various treatments for radicalism do not always have to focus on radicalism with religious motives, because many other radical groups have similar patterns and the same dangers but are not related to religion at all.Some lessons that can be drawn from the wrong emphasis on radicalism have occurred in Europe, where public discourse on law on radicalism is more emphasized on Islam, for example, public discussions, laws and law enforcement, then issues of intolerance, radicalism and extremism.Identified by using a measuring tool that is used for all, sometimes this creates ambiguity and results in arbitrary treatment of a moderate and harmless group.However, after this focus on Islam, the Muslims there became one of the groups most affected by this treatment even though their behavior was fine (Dannreuther & Luke, 2010).where public discourse on law on radicalism is more emphasized on Islam, for example, public discussions, laws and law enforcement, then issues of intolerance, radicalism and extremism are identified using one measuring tool that is used for all, so that sometimes this creates inconsistencies.Clarity gives rise to arbitrary treatment of a moderate and harmless group.However, after this focus on Islam, Muslims became one of the groups most affected by this treatment even though their behaviour was fine (Dannreuther and Luke, 2010).where public discourse on the law on radicalism is more emphasized on Islam, for example, public discussions, laws and law enforcement, then issues of intolerance, radicalism and extremism are identified using one measuring tool that is used for all, so that sometimes this creates inconsistencies.Clarity gives rise to arbitrary treatment of a moderate and harmless group.However, after this focus on Islam, Muslims there became one of the groups most affected by this treatment even though their behavior was fine (Dannreuther and Luke, 2010).radicalism and extremism are identified by using one measurement tool that is used for all, so sometimes this creates ambiguity and results in arbitrary treatment of a group that is moderate and harmless.However, after this focus on Islam, Muslims became one of the groups most affected by this treatment even though their behaviour was fine (Dannreuther and Luke, 2010).radicalism and extremism are identified by using one measurement tool that is used for all, so sometimes this creates ambiguity and results in arbitrary treatment of a group that is moderate and harmless.However, after this focus on Islam, Muslims there became one of the groups most affected by this treatment even though their behaviour was fine (Dannreuther and Luke, 2010).
If we look at the characteristics of the respondents' agreement with this radical type, then the calculation based on the respondents shows that there are 97 students or 14.01% have a low category.As many as 488 students or 70.52% are in the medium category, and 107 students or 15.46% have a high category.Then, when the calculation is seen from each item, it shows if the item"Pancasila ideology must be obeyed properly" has a low category, with four respondents strongly agreeing and 6 respondents choosing to agree.In the context of rejecting the NKRI, there is the item "Indonesia, which is currently in the form of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) is the correct form of the state," where only one person voted strongly in agreement and only ten people voted in agreement.
Even though this radical type is of little concern to the public in its solution, researchers have the notion that this type cannot be separated from attention.In several contexts, the initial pathway to the entry of this radical understanding was not only caused by religious fanaticism but also by this type of thinking.Many radical groups have taken advantage of this situation as a da'wah strategy in which they take advantage of the generation that has begun to think about the ideals of life and high enthusiasm in responding to problems that occur in society (Sanusi & Darmawan, 2016).This gives radicalism a high chance of carrying out its diaspora strategy for students in high schools.It can happen because educated young people are more enthusiastic about being creative in solving societal problems; for example, they are fed up with corruption, chaos, and the economy.As a result, most young people, including high school students, felt sensitive about their beliefs in the government that was standing at that time, so this made the chance for radicalism as revolutionary understanding to enter these people very high (Dannreuther and Luke, 2010).
For example, the strategy carried out by radical groups who are very good at analyzing problems.For example, a metanarrative on the case of the Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) organization, which used to have many followers in Indonesia.The Diaspora of this organization is very good at stringing contemporary Indonesian issues into its metanarratives to bring about a call for radical change.For example, the slump that the country is currently in is a detrimental consequence of secular Western influence, so this problem will be corrected once the caliphate has been restored.Then other metanarratives from HTI are also often found in his works citing all kinds of social, economic, political and cultural ailments.They are able to give the impression that almost everything that befalls Muslim life comes from non-Islamic sources while hope for improvement can only be found in Islam.So that the potential of this critical thinking becomes very effective in influencing them (Akbarzadeh & Mansouri, 2007).
Indeed, if we look deeper, this type of thinking tendency can be positive if directed positively because critical thinking about dissatisfaction is needed to create better change.However, this dissatisfaction and criticism have two sides that, if exploited, can create good change.But if we cannot direct it, it will instead lead to destructive negative actions to this nation.It does not always have to be violent but also acts of disobedience and disbelief.Therefore, directing ways of thinking and improving this country's psychological and structural conditions is very important as a way of overcoming this tendency to think radically.

Conclusion
Based on the research findings, the vulnerability to radical thinking tendencies at the senior high school level in Sukabumi shows quite high vulnerability.Overall, the radical tendencies of high school students in Sukabumi are divided into several types.This arrangement will have value to make it easier to prevent problems of radicalism in the field.Each type of radicalism compiled is adjusted to its forming factors and adapted to the ideology of radical groups developing in Indonesia.When measurements are taken, the type of radical the respondent is vulnerable to can be seen.After calculating, the results are obtained if, in general, the vulnerability to radicalism is divided into two types: the vulnerability to religious radicalism and the vulnerability to non-religious radicalism.In the type of vulnerability to religious radicalism, it is divided into three.The first potential vulnerability is the tendency of radical terrorism thinking in the name of religion which the results show that 100 respondents, or 14.45%, have a low category, 491 respondents, or 70.95%, have a medium category, and 101 respondents or 14.59 respondents have a high category.Then, the second type, namely the tendency to think radically in the aspect of thinking where 77 students or 11.12% have a low category.As many as 498 students, or 71.96% of students, are in the medium category, and as many as 117 students or 16, 90% of students, have a high category.In the third type, namely, vulnerability to violent radical thinking tendencies, 76 students or 10.98%, are in the low category, 508 students or 73.41%, are in the medium category, and 108 students or 15.60%, are in the high category.Meanwhile, in the type of non-religious radicalism, the vulnerability of thinking shows that 97 students or 14.01%, are in a low category, 488 students or 70.52%, are in the medium category, and as many as 107 students or 15.46%, are in the high category.