From Ohio State University, an explanation for the existence of bloggers like Joe Romm and why many moderate scientists don’t speak out. There’s even “fake data” involved.
I’ve seen this phenomenon of extreme views being the most vocal in my own hometown of Chico, where a small vocal group of people often hold sway of the city council because they are the ones that show up up regularly to protest, well, just about anything. The council, seeing this regular vocal feedback, erroneously concludes that the view accurately represents the majority of city residents. The result is a train wreck, and the council sits there scratching their heads wondering why after making such decisions, they get their ears burned off by people unhappy with the decision. Bottom line, we all need to be more active in the public input process if we want decisions to be accurately reflected.
COLUMBUS, Ohio – People with relatively extreme opinions may be more willing to publicly share their views than those with more moderate views, according to a new study.
The key is that the extremists have to believe that more people share their views than actually do, the research found.
 |
|
Kimberly Rios Morrison
|
The results may offer one possible explanation for our fractured political climate in the United States, where extreme liberal and conservative opinions often seem to dominate.
“When people with extreme views have this false sense that they are in the majority, they are more willing to express themselves,” said Kimberly Rios Morrison, co-author of the study and assistant professor of communication at Ohio State University.
How do people with extreme views believe they are in the majority? This can happen in groups that tend to lean moderately in one direction on an issue. Those that take the extreme version of their group’s viewpoint may believe that they actually represent the true views of their group, Morrison said.
One example is views about alcohol use among college students.
In a series of studies, Morrison and her co-author found that college students who were extremely pro-alcohol were more likely to express their opinions than others, even though most students surveyed were moderate in their views about alcohol use.
“Students who were stridently pro-alcohol tended to think that their opinion was much more popular than it actually was,” she said. “They seemed to buy into the stereotype that college students are very comfortable with alcohol use.”
Morrison conducted the study with Dale Miller of Stanford University. Their research appeared in a recent issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
The studies were done at Stanford University, which had a policy of prohibiting alcohol usage in common areas of all freshman dorms. In the first study, 37 students were asked to rate their own views about this policy on a scale from 1 (very strongly opposed) to 9 (very strongly in favor).
The average student’s views were near the mid-point of the scale — but most rated the typical Stanford student as more pro-alcohol than themselves.
“There’s this stereotype that college students are very pro-alcohol, and even most college students believe it,” Morrison said. “Most students think of themselves as less pro-alcohol than average.”
In the next two studies, students again rated themselves on similar scales that revealed how pro-alcohol they were. They were then asked how willing they would be to discuss their views on alcohol use with other Stanford students.
In general, students who were the most pro-alcohol were the most likely to say they wanted to express their views, compared to those with moderate or anti-alcohol views.
However, in one study the researchers added a twist: they gave participants fake data which indicated that other Stanford students held relatively conservative, anti-alcohol views.
When extremely pro-alcohol students viewed this data, they were less likely to say they were willing to discuss alcohol usage with their fellow students.
“It is only when they have this sense that they are in the majority that extremely pro-alcohol students are more willing to express their views on the issue,” Morrison said.
However, students who had more extreme anti-alcohol views were not more likely to want to express their views, even when they saw the data that suggested a majority of their fellow students agreed with them.
“Their views that they are in the minority may be so deeply entrenched that it is difficult to change just based on our one experiment,” she said. “In addition, they don’t have the experience expressing their opinions on the subject like the pro-alcohol extremists do, so they may not feel as comfortable.”
This finding shows that not all extremists are more willing to share their opinions – only those who hold more extreme versions of the group’s actual views.
These results have implications for how Americans view the political opinions of their communities and their political parties, Morrison said.
Take as an example a community that tends to be moderate politically, but leans slightly liberal.
People with more extreme liberal views in the community may be more likely than others to attend publicly visible protests and display bumper stickers espousing their liberal views, because they think the community supports them.
“Everyone else sees these extreme opinions being expressed on a regular basis and they may eventually come to believe their community is more liberal than it actually is,” Morrison said. “The same process could occur in moderately conservative communities.
“You have a cycle that feeds on itself: the more you hear these extremists expressing their opinions, the more you are going to believe that those extreme beliefs are normal for your community.”
A similar process may occur in groups such as political parties. Moderately conservative people who belong to the Republican Party, for example, may believe that people with extremely conservative views represent their party, because those are the opinions they hear most often. However, that may not be true.
Morrison said when she and her colleagues were thinking about doing this study, they had in mind the phrase about the “silent majority” in the United States, which was popularized by President Richard Nixon and his vice-president, Spiro Agnew. They referred to the silent majority as the people who supported the war in Vietnam, but who were overshadowed by the “vocal minority” against the war.
While there may not be one monolithic silent majority in the United States, Morrison said this study suggests that the minority may indeed be more vocal in some cases.
#
Back2Bat (12:39:32) :
its opponents eventually die
What, from bites on the ankle?
[snip…c’mon Leif ~ ctm]
Lief:
The BB did not involve a ‘distinct’ location. All of infinite space expands everywhere. The observable universe is a function of our location and is thus not ‘the’ universe.
I did not say a ‘distinct’ location, I said a ‘discrete’ location. That discreet location is the singularity from which all space, time, mass and energy emerged. How that happened is still the subject of debate, but it is generally agreed that if it did happen, that it involved a discreet quantity of mass and energy. Measuring or inferring that discreet quantity from the perspective of time and space introduces further limitations on the finitude of the observable universe and the energy scale of the original singularity.
As a further note, there are theories of the universe which could justify the notion that the universe is infinite, but these theories essentially postulate an infinite number of Big Bang-like events occurring within a larger metaspace – in essense that our visibile universe is actually just a discreet black hole of finite energy within a much larger infinite universe of an infinite number of such black holes separated from one another by great distances and inviolable event horizons. In this view, the “Big Bang” is more akin to the explosions of supernovas which create black holes in our own universe. It may just be black holes all the way up and down.
inre: Robinson Jeffers
Roger Knights (05:01:17) :
Here’s another take on this, from Robinson Jeffers’ De Rurem Virtute
Leif Svalgaard (23:55:28) :
Glenn (18:25:28) :
Be precise, Leif. Is “When people do not impress their religious beliefs on others, including their own children. that science, the arts, political and religious freedoms and economic vitality will flourish?” what you believe?
“I was very precise. This is what Zeke should have said [cf my remark above]. Personally, I don’t think there is a correlation, perhaps some wishful thinking, but that’s all. Nothing [especially science] flourishes by forcing religion down everybody’s throat.”
Perhaps political freedom, religious freedom, economic vitality, the arts, flourish when science is forced down everybody’s throat?
I’m just curious why you put religion and science on opposite sides of the scales.
Don’t you realize that science, the arts, politics, economies of countries *have* flourished under religious “impression” is an easily supportable claim, unlike your vague and unsupportable theorizing above?
Or perhaps you are an anarchist who thinks that everything would flourish if nothing was “forced down everybody’s throat”.
But I have noted a tendency a desire of yours to censor if your views are challenged.
Leif Svalgaard (07:37:56) :
Back2Bat (07:00:34) :
Having Purpose, She would quickly reign over purposeless chaos.
“This is not science, but religion, and should not be taught in public schools, except in the context of comparing various religions.” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion””
How does the first amendment support your claim that religion should be taught in religion class and not science class?
And how does “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech” fit in with that?
conradg (13:54:17) :
further limitations on the finitude of the observable universe and the energy scale of the original singularity.
the observable universe is a function of our location [a different observer sees a different ‘observable universe’ that most of the time does not overlap with ours]. So, any discussion of the observable universe has no bearing on the ‘finitude’ and energy and mass of the ‘whole universe’. Could you perhaps stop bringing this up again and again.
To my knowledge there is no such thing as a ‘discrete’ or ‘discreet’ location [apart from lovers’ hideaways], so I interpreted your word as ‘distinct’, perhaps meaning ‘well-defined’.
By now I have forgotten why you are harping on this. Ah, wait, something with the probability of life. But that has nothing to do with infinite or finite, the universe just has to be big enough. Infinitude is not required.
Leif Svalgaard (12:20:16) :
Back2Bat (11:05:37) :
Having Purpose, She would quickly reign over purposeless chaos.
Be a gentleman and quote me accurately please. I said “He”.
“Perhaps, but I often correct quotes”
No perhaps about it, Lief, he said “He”. Correcting quotes is a “no-no”, not a “correction” but an “alteration”. You need to get your head on straight.
Glenn (17:38:52) :
Don’t you realize that science, the arts, politics, economies of countries *have* flourished under religious “impression” is an easily supportable claim, unlike your vague and unsupportable theorizing above?
If you read carefully [even what you quoted in your post], you’ll see that I make no such claims. In fact, I said: “Personally, I don’t think there is a correlation, perhaps some wishful thinking, but that’s all.”
How does the first amendment support your claim that religion should be taught in religion class and not science class?
Because religion is not science unless it is claimed to be by ‘established religion’ that manipulates the curriculum. And that is what should not be ‘respected’.
And how does “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech” fit in with that?
It has nothing to do with that. It is quite common in the Constitution to find such disconnected clauses. Like the amendment continues: “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”. How does the ‘right to assemble fit? Stick to the subject. Or rather, stick to the topic of this thread.
Glenn (18:05:26) :
You need to get your head on straight.
and you are the straight-head police?
Now, I did not consider this as much a quote as a statement that showed the arbitrariness of the whole thing. If it will make you happy, I’ll profusely apologize to everybody who feel they need such that I have tried to exercise my 1st amendment right to express myself. Happy now?
Leif Svalgaard (18:24:59) :
Glenn (17:38:52) :
Don’t you realize that science, the arts, politics, economies of countries *have* flourished under religious “impression” is an easily supportable claim, unlike your vague and unsupportable theorizing above?
“If you read carefully [even what you quoted in your post], you’ll see that I make no such claims. In fact, I said: “Personally, I don’t think there is a correlation, perhaps some wishful thinking, but that’s all.””
Yes, you were obfuscating, and failed to answer a simple question with a simple answer, or in lieu of that, to make your own beliefs clearer when asked.
But I did notice what you said, and it was crystal clear:
“Nothing [especially science] flourishes by forcing religion down everybody’s throat.”
How about supporting that claim, or is that just “wishful thinking”?
Leif Svalgaard (18:24:59) :
Glenn (17:38:52)
How does the first amendment support your claim that religion should be taught in religion class and not science class?
“Because religion is not science unless it is claimed to be by ‘established religion’ that manipulates the curriculum. And that is what should not be ‘respected’.”
Is this same logic used in your science? Gawk. The first amendment makes no mention of “science” and can not possibly be used to support your claim.
You must surely be perplexed when you read “In God We Trust” on our currency.
Glenn (20:12:09) :
“Nothing [especially science] flourishes by forcing religion down everybody’s throat.”
How about supporting that claim, or is that just “wishful thinking”?
I take it back: the cranks, quacks, fraudsters, bigots, fundamentalists, blood-sucking societal parasites, etc, do flourish.
If you disagree with me on this, you could, perhaps, show us how imposing sharia law [for example] helps promote science and make flourish the arts and personal liberties.
Reply: Better yet, can we get off the topic of science vs religion? ~ ctm
Glenn (20:18:39) :
The first amendment makes no mention of “science” and can not possibly be used to support your claim.
It makes mention of religion and that proves the point.
You must surely be perplexed when you read “In God We Trust” on our currency.
You trust in Allah or Zoroaster or Khawar [whom I feel some affinity with]?
And, yes, I’m somewhat perplexed, but willing to accept a few insequential quirks.
Leif Svalgaard (18:24:59) :
Glenn:
“How does the first amendment support your claim that religion should be taught in religion class and not science class?
And how does “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech” fit in with that?”
Lief:
“It has nothing to do with that. It is quite common in the Constitution to find such disconnected clauses. Like the amendment continues: “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”. How does the ‘right to assemble fit? Stick to the subject. Or rather, stick to the topic of this thread.”
It isn’t a disconnected clause, Lief, but that isn’t a valid argument for why it “has nothing to do with it”. This use of “right to assemble” is more obfuscation from you.
But what I quoted from the 1st *is* relevant to the first part (you previously quoted) to support your claim. You didn’t like the second part because it didn’t work for you. The first part you apparently thought would work for you, but now you would like us to think that it “has nothing to do with that”.
Do you think it is a good idea to claim in public that “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” has “nothing to do” with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?
Or that freedom of speech has nothing to do with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” for that matter??
Can we stop the religious debate please? Everyone here.
Leif Svalgaard (18:50:17) :
Glenn (18:05:26) :
You need to get your head on straight.
“and you are the straight-head police?
Now, I did not consider this as much a quote as a statement that showed the arbitrariness of the whole thing. If it will make you happy, I’ll profusely apologize to everybody who feel they need such that I have tried to exercise my 1st amendment right to express myself. Happy now?”
No, you don’t seem to recognize that it is wrong to deliberately misquote another.
That infringes on the other’s right of free speech.
It is a simple matter.
You need to get your head on straight.
Arguments, quotes, or misquotes on a blog have nothing to do with the First amendment until the government becomes involved in censorship. If I in my role as moderator were to screw with your post, it would have nothing to do with your right of Freedom of speech. It would be a violation of our self-imposed blog policies and nothing else.
Leif Svalgaard (20:38:26) :
Glenn (20:18:39) :
The first amendment makes no mention of “science” and can not possibly be used to support your claim.
“It makes mention of religion and that proves the point.”
Not at all, and as a professed man of science you should be ashamed to make such illogical statements. The first amendment can not be used to “prove” anything concerning science, since it makes no mention of science. This is also a simple point.
You need to get your head on straight.
***********
Glenn (20:18:39) :
You must surely be perplexed when you read “In God We Trust” on our currency.
“You trust in Allah or Zoroaster or Khawar [whom I feel some affinity with]?
And, yes, I’m somewhat perplexed, but willing to accept a few insequential quirks.”
You really do need to drop this habit of using such vague concepts and arguments to support claims. The United States may not be an official “Christian” country, but belief in God in this country has not been and is not an “insequential quirk”, no matter how you might think to twist the meaning.
Glenn (20:54:42) :
but belief in God in this country has not been and is not an “inconsequential quirk”, no matter how you might think to twist the meaning.
and that is precisely the problem because it gets in the way of proper scientific literacy [as it did in the 17th century], to wit the nonsense of the past scores of postings, including yours.
P.S. I’m not ‘claiming’ anything. Just expressing my opinion.
Leif Svalgaard (21:18:41) :
Glenn (20:54:42) :
but belief in God in this country has not been and is not an “inconsequential quirk”, no matter how you might think to twist the meaning.
“and that is precisely the problem because it gets in the way of proper scientific literacy [as it did in the 17th century], to wit the nonsense of the past scores of postings, including yours.
P.S. I’m not ‘claiming’ anything. Just expressing my opinion.”
P.S. When you make a claim, you can’t claim it isn’t a claim by claiming it is an opinion, Leif. Just before your “P.S.” above you made a claim. It is a simple matter, but I am not surprised to see that you do not realize that. My advice to you is to stick to the more complex subjects so that your illogical claims are more easily concealed.
As to this silly idea of religion in the US being a “problem”, since the US has been and still is rather “flourishing in science and the arts, political and religious freedom, and economic vitality” despite parents “impressing” religion on their offspring, I’d say again you really need to get your head on straight. Indicting religion as a whole is not a smart thing to do, especially in a country where a majority of people, including scientists, artists, politicians and capitalists hold religious beliefs.
Glenn (22:25:09) :
Indicting religion as a whole is not a smart thing to do, especially in a country where a majority of people, including scientists, artists, politicians and capitalists hold religious beliefs.
When their religious beliefs take over their senses, religion becomes a problem. In fact, ‘the’ problem. The 21st century will be the century of biology and the US will not be able to flourish in that [stem cells, evolution, etc]. Religion is mostly to blame for the scientific illiteracy [young Earth, non-BB, etc] that clouds people’s judgment. There is nothing wrong with holding religious beliefs and that is not the problem. The problem is when those beliefs blind people to reality and to the grandeur of this universe in which we live. I do not expect you to see this.
Leif Svalgaard (23:07:01) :
Glenn (22:25:09) :
Indicting religion as a whole is not a smart thing to do, especially in a country where a majority of people, including scientists, artists, politicians and capitalists hold religious beliefs.
“When their religious beliefs take over their senses, religion becomes a problem. In fact, ‘the’ problem. The 21st century will be the century of biology and the US will not be able to flourish in that [stem cells, evolution, etc]. Religion is mostly to blame for the scientific illiteracy [young Earth, non-BB, etc] that clouds people’s judgment. There is nothing wrong with holding religious beliefs and that is not the problem. The problem is when those beliefs blind people to reality and to the grandeur of this universe in which we live. I do not expect you to see this.”
The self-righteous arrogance and malice required to place me in this imaginary group of yours that will bring down the US must affect your life profoundly. I’m truly sorry for you, that you think to have a monopoly on reality and the grandeur of the universe. Perhaps you have become what you claim is the problem.
Leif,
To remind you of what we are discussing, you made the claim that the physical universe is infinite, and claimed that Big Bang theory supports this idea. It simply does not. With all due respect, you simply don’t seem to understand Big Bang theory very well. I have patiently tried to explain why your claim of an infinite (potentially) observable universe simply doesn’t mesh with Big Bang theory, but you don’t seem to be listening.
It has nothing to do with where we observe the universe from, what location we are at. The expanding observable universe is, according\to Big Bang theory, only a small fraction of the actual Big Bang. Most of the mass/energy of the Big Bang is actually outside the “event horizon” of the Big Bang, utterly beyond our ability to observe it. Even so, the total mass of the universe is finite in nature, and the total energy vectors add up to zero. Even the greater mass of the universe, beyond the observable event horizon, is finite as well.
An infinite physical universe created by a Big Bang event would require that the Big Bang itself be infinite, which would tear apart all of space-time with infinite forces. There could be no universe as we know and observe it in such a case, which is why even on the theoretical level we know that the physical universe is finite, not infinite. As I tried to mention earlier, theories do exist of an infinite physical universe that is NOT created by the Big Bang, but within which expanding singularities do pop up now and then and create finite mini-universes such as ours might be, but even in those cases, our own universe would not itself be infinite. I know of no scientific cosmological theory which describes our observable physical universe as infinite in either mass, energy, space, or time.
I have no particular agenda involved in the theological discussion you are having.
Glenn (01:41:14) :
The self-righteous arrogance and malice required to place me in this imaginary group of yours that will bring down the US must affect your life profoundly.
I think you avowedly place yourself in that group, and I’m afraid that group will at some point be detrimental and will affect people’s lives negatively and profoundly.
conradg (03:27:00) :
Even so, the total mass of the universe is finite in nature, and the total energy vectors add up to zero.
Remember you started out by saying that the energy was some finite large number and that therefore the mass was finite too.
An infinite physical universe created by a Big Bang event would require that the Big Bang itself be infinite, which would tear apart all of space-time with infinite forces.
If one assumes that the BB was from a singularity [of zero extent] then to get from the singularity to even a finite size involves an infinitely large expansion factor. Your “would tear apart all of space-time with infinite forces” does not make sense, and even so perhaps the force was infinite. The energy density was. BB theory says nothing about the mass involved. And your obsession with the ‘observable’ universe is misplaced. The ‘observable’ universe is an infinitely small part of the total.
Leif Svalgaard (08:03:40) :
Glenn (01:41:14) :
The self-righteous arrogance and malice required to place me in this imaginary group of yours that will bring down the US must affect your life profoundly.
“I think you avowedly place yourself in that group, and I’m afraid that group will at some point be detrimental and will affect people’s lives negatively and profoundly.”
I avowedly place myself in an imaginary group you made up? I’ve only challenged you to support your claims, and have not advocated, nor do I advocate or hold extremist religious beliefs. Not that extremism is your main concern, since you have stated that “Religion is mostly to blame for the scientific illiteracy [young Earth, non-BB, etc] that clouds people’s judgment”. Of course, you have made no attempt to support *any* of the claims you have made in this discussion, despite my encouragement of you to do so.
Why are you willing to go to such extremes to share your religious bias?
How about just supporting *one* little claim of yours, that I “avowedly” placed myself in the group you define.
Glenn (11:14:53) :
I’ve only challenged you to support your claims,
What claim(s)?
And why are you interested in this? What is in it for you?
Leif Svalgaard (11:44:36) :
Glenn (11:14:53) :
I’ve only challenged you to support your claims,
“What claim(s)?”
For one, that I have “avowed” some belief you deem dangerous. Others have been identified as well, as anyone can easily go back to and find.
“And why are you interested in this? What is in it for you?”
How about what’s in it for you to change reference of “He” to “She”? I’ve only tried to get you to support what you claim, or if you wish, what opinions you have expressed on the topic. In reality, it could be useful to find out whether your claims of what has and what will happen has any merit. You remember reality, right?
You aren’t about to, are you.