Polarization (Cass R Sunstein)
December 20th 2007 06:24
The article is essentially about how, if you create a group of people with similar ideas, they'll all grow more extreme or firmer in their views.
What could explain the phenomenon?
"The first explanation emphasizes the role of information. Suppose that people who tend to oppose nuclear power are exposed to the views of those who agree with them. It stands to reason that such people will find a disproportionately large number of arguments against nuclear power -- and a disproportionately small number of arguments in favor of nuclear power. ...
The second explanation, involving social comparison, begins with the reasonable suggestion that people want to be perceived favorably by other group members. Once they hear what others believe, they often adjust their positions in the direction of the dominant position. ...
The final explanation is the most subtle, and probably the most important. The starting point here is that on many issues, most of us are really not sure what we think. Our lack of certainty inclines us toward the middle. Outside of enclaves, moderation is the usual path. Now imagine that people find themselves in enclaves in which they exclusively hear from others who think as they do. As a result, their confidence typically grows, and they become more extreme in their beliefs. Corroboration, in short, reduces tentativeness, and an increase in confidence produces extremism."
Sunstein uses these observations in the context of a general discussion of the Internet. His opinion seems to be that "enclave extremism" is on balance a bad thing, but he presents arguments both for and against it.
On the upside:
-- they can "fuel movements of great value", like "the civil-rights movement, the antislavery movement, the antigenocide movement, the attack on communism in Eastern Europe, and the movement for gender equality";
-- the fact that they "promote the development of positions that would otherwise be invisible, silenced, or squelched in general debate" contributes to the strength and diversity of the public marketplace of ideas;
-- such enclaves are often good for the people involved: "[t]hey can make life a lot more fun; they can reduce loneliness and spur creativity".
On the downside:
-- there's no guarantee that the ideas are good ideas. "It is easy to think of examples... the rise of Nazism, terrorism, and cults of various sorts. There is a general risk that those who flock together, on the Internet or elsewhere, will end up both confident and wrong, simply because they have not been sufficiently exposed to counterarguments. They may even think of their fellow citizens as opponents or adversaries in some kind of 'war.'"
***
Notes
-- In the context of compulsory voting, it's sometimes claimed that since both parties are trying to pander to the majority, there will likely be convergent evolution. This centrism contributes to stability of government. But "stability" is also a sort of dead weight, an ossification.
-- A longer version of this article was published in the Boston Review (Summer 2001). This longer version was in turn based on a book by Sunstein: Republic.com (Princeton University Press, 2001).
Sunstein's negative conclusion in the Boston Review is worth quoting:
"[F]or citizens of a heterogeneous democracy, a fragmented communications market creates considerable dangers. There are dangers for each of us as individuals; constant exposure to one set of views is likely to lead to errors and confusions, or to unthinking conformity (emphasized by John Stuart Mill). And to the extent that the process makes people less able to work cooperatively on shared problems, by turning collections of people into non-communicating confessional groups, there are dangers for society as a whole."
| 100 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
PBS Jim Lehre showed a stint about it.
Interesting things they showed when secretly puting an opposing person in a hardline group. The bunker mentality seemed to strengthen in smaller groups with less room for compromise.
Certainly there are a few issues which have little or no middle point of negotiation.
A couple of things did make me think.
The inability of people to sometimes seperate the person fom the viewpoint. A person can be deemed to be good or evil based upon a stance and not by the content of their character. Sometimes the inability to see the other viewpoints as anything other than a form of mental illness. I think Andropov comes to mind here, "only the insane reject communism."
I did find the study I saw to be valuable and needing more investigation. I don't expect world peace tome out of but I do expect better management practices in companies.
The other open question is can this relate to more extreme situations like racist groups, terrorist and cults like Jim Jones?
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Hard to do...people naturally gravitate towards people like them, right?
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Yep, that's one of the implications of the article. I think it's similar to the idea, in a different context, that you create more tolerance (of ethic groups, of sexual minorities, of the other gender, etc) by forcing people to mix with each other at school.
But there's a catch, you see. I mentioned this in my post, but didn't bring it out well. -- Is centrism always a good thing? Or is it only sometimes a good thing? Or is it never a good thing?
An extreme point of view might happen to be the correct one. So, to flip Sunstein's argument on its head, he's worried that the centrifugal tendencies of isolated groups might encuorage error -- but mightn't it be the case, at least sometimes, that centripetal forces also encourage error?
Puts me in mind of the parable about trying to please everyone, and ending up pleasing no one; or the idea that, sometimes, a strong leader is preferable to rule by committee.
Dear Damo,
The Sunstein piece is less a study than a reflection on various studies. I think he particularly mentions some experiment run by the University of Colorado.
I think the separability of person from viewpoint (if you just consider that idea in a very general way) is complex. You make me think, among other things, of the notion of "ad hominem" attack, about criticizing evidence on the basis of the source, about arguments over the responsibility of authors for their text, and about the idea that "the author is dead" in terms of the audience's freedom of interpretation.
Anyway, I'm a bit wary of making a claim like "The author is separable from their viewpoint"...
Thanks for mentioning this -- I think it's a trap that I also am accustomed to slide into.
Of course, I don't doubt that some people are mad, and that "They're mad" can be a good explanation for some people's beliefs. But you're right to caution against reaching for this explanation too quickly...
And even if they are mad, and they belief their wife is a hat and vice versa or whatever -- well maybe there's still value to be derived from trying to see things from their view.
That's certainly one of Sunstein's thoughts.