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.
#
There are two problems when religion is mixed with education. First, perspective and philosophy says that religious thought freedom is allowed in one group, but is labeled a terrorist activity in another group. It breeds less freedom, not more, and there are many examples of abuse found right on US soil. Another way of putting it, freedom for my view is allowed, freedom for your view is not. My school can be allowed, yours can’t.
Second, when religious faith (of any kind) is mixed in with any form of education, knowledge is compromised. If the goal is to mature a faith in a higher power/notion and thus a higher purpose, the ability to advance scientific knowledge and understanding of our universe, from the smallest particle to the largest entity, is diminished, given second place, and thus open to abuse, to say the least.
My personal view is that religious instruction does not belong in education, be it private or public. The full hours of education should be for the sole purpose of education, by fully trained teachers, meaning that if you want to drive a car, you have to pass a test; if you want to drive your kid crazy teaching the little ankle biter, you have to pass a test. Training in religious thought and practice properly belongs in after school hours. No license required.
Leif,
Two observers 100 billion light years apart are not in each others observable universe [yet]. Their observations and situation are within proper scientific study as they in the future will be within in each others observable universe. There is no restriction on that number N. We can make that N=100 trillion or 100 gazillion instead of 100 billion. To me, a finite universe means that there is an upper limit to N. I don’t think there is. If you do, or if ‘Big Bang Theory’ predicts a limit to N, then tell me what N is, and why you think it has that value.
Again, you’re not understanding what the term “observable universe” in Big Bang theory means. It’s not the limitation you describe. Two observers 100 billion light years apart are indeed within the observable limits of the universe, if that is the size of the event horizon, meaning that it would at least be possible for them to see one another given enough time. Everything within the event horizon of the universe is “observable”, theoretically at least. However, most of the universe is simply not observable by anyone within the event horizon of the Big Bang, regardless where you are within it. Most of the mass and energy of the Big Band lies outside of the event horizon, and it is simply not observable by any means. We can only infer it by the characteristics of the mass and energy that is found within the event horizon of the observable universe. Your understanding of Big Bang theory is simply flawed and incomplete. You imagine that all of it is at least potentially observable if we were just closer to it. That is simply not the case. The only way we could observe what is on the other side of the event horizon would be to actually be outside the event horizon, in which case we could not observe anything on this side of it. There is no information that can pass through that event horizon in either direction – except, as I said before, gravity waves, if they ever turn out to exist.
conradg (00:11:12) :
Two observers 100 billion light years apart are indeed within the observable limits of the universe, if that is the size of the event horizon, meaning that it would at least be possible for them to see one another given enough time.
Since time does not seem limited in the forward direction [if disagree, explain how], then the observable limits are not finite either. You ideas about the event horizon are wrong. Information passes easily through an event horizon from the outside. And gravitational waves do exist.
“Two observers 100 billion light years apart are indeed within the observable limits of the universe”
Only when the Universe reaches an age of 100 billion years, until then it is a meaningless distance that doesn’t fit in our ~14 billion year old universe
Pamela Gray (21:21:33) :
There are two problems when religion is mixed with education. First, perspective and philosophy says that religious thought freedom is allowed in one group, but is labeled a terrorist activity in another group. It breeds less freedom, not more, and there are many examples of abuse found right on US soil. Another way of putting it, freedom for my view is allowed, freedom for your view is not. My school can be allowed, yours can’t.
What you describe is not a problem inherent in mixing religion with education. It is a problem inherent in mixing the state with education. The state must be neutral, but as I have pointed out above, it cannot be, because it is made of humans. Perhaps if robots ruled the world, religion would not be replaced with politics but since they do not, the state functions on cronyism and greed. You simply trade requiring taxpayers to fund religious education they oppose for requiring taxpayers to fund other ideological education they oppose (Meatless Monday, Day of Silence, Earth Day, Columbus Day, etc.).
Second, when religious faith (of any kind) is mixed in with any form of education, knowledge is compromised.
Religious bigotism blinds people to the permeance of other kinds of faith that influence modern education. I maintain, that welcoming the variety of individual opinions (even the extremist views of this article) are a necessity for expanding knowledge. The other option is the state dictates a single belief, and since it controls the education of so many, scientific exploration suffers (Lipid Hypothesis is a stellar example).
If the goal is to mature a faith in a higher power/notion and thus a higher purpose, the ability to advance scientific knowledge and understanding of our universe, from the smallest particle to the largest entity, is diminished, given second place, and thus open to abuse, to say the least.
It is interesting that Leif highlighted science education in China and Russia as examples of science flourishing in a totalitarian system. It is true that the Chinese have made brilliant contributions to science under their religious emperors, but lately (under anti-religious communism) they have become more adept at copying and cheating than innovating. The Russians did achieve certain scientific successes, but hardly anything to rival our own. But I assume you can back up your statement with a few examples. I’ve tried to think of some brilliant scientists who had no religion with their education but alas, I come up short. Werner Von Braun for example, was a devout Lutheran, and many of the innovators who professed atheism did so as a rejection of the religion they were taught (Thomas Edison and Charles Darwin for example). In fact, it would seem that including religion in the education expands the mind (and perhaps instills a certain regard for humanity that precludes poisoning for profit), in some cases leading to a rejection of the teaching and in others, not. Would Werner Von Braun been more brilliant if he had rejected religion? I doubt it. Would Edison have been less brilliant if he had not rejected religion? I doubt it.
Sandy (07:36:11) :
>i>Only when the Universe reaches an age of 100 billion years, until then it is a meaningless distance that doesn’t fit in our ~14 billion year old universe
No, it is not meaningless in a sense, because galaxies exist at that distance and beyond. The ‘visible’ or ‘observable’ universe at the moment already extends to about 46.2 billion light years.
Lucy (08:00:45) :
It is true that the Chinese have made brilliant contributions to science under their religious emperors, but lately (under anti-religious communism) they have become more adept at copying and cheating than innovating.
The Chinese space program is a good example of the recent progress of science in China. Try http://www.signtific.org/en/forecasts/growth-chinese-science-and-technology
“China has long been a leading exporter of graduate students. In the last 20 years, domestic training programs in science and technology have grown dramatically. PhD production increased fiftyfold between 1986 and 1999, from less than 200 to more than 7,000 degrees granted annually. By some estimates, China now graduates more engineers than the rest of the world combined. Part of this growth has been driven by an expansion of the Chinese higher education system, a trend that seems certain to continue.”
The Russians did achieve certain scientific successes, but hardly anything to rival our own.
As with the Chinese, the issue is not achievement, but education, as I pointed out. The average American is scientific illiterate compared to the average Soviet citizen. In China and in the SSSR, science was and is held in high esteem. In the US, it is a badge of honor to be illiterate. C.f. Mummert who I quoted above.
If you at at your wit’s end thinking about a brilliant atheist, try Steven Weinberg.
Lucy, you misunderstand me when I believe that religion has no place. It has a place if that is what parents want their child to have. It just doesn’t belong in education. It can be after school (as mine was), and on Sunday (as mine was). Freedom of religion will only be truly free when or if it is removed from education. And our collective Science IQ will increase. Bonus!
Pamela Gray (09:21:33) Freedom of religion will only be truly free when or if it is removed from education. And our collective Science IQ will increase. Bonus!
So do you have even an example to support this idea?
Leif offered up Steven Weinberg, but unfortunately Weinberg graduated from high school in 1950. The first Supreme Court decision against prayer in public schools only came down in 1948, so it is safe to say Weinberg falls into the catergory with Darwin and Edison of scientists educated with religion who went on to reject it.
“No, it is not meaningless in a sense, because galaxies exist at that distance and beyond. The ‘visible’ or ‘observable’ universe at the moment already extends to about 46.2 billion light years.”
The universe is estimated to be ~ 14 billion years old so by definition we can’t see more than 14 billion light years in any direction because the light would have set out before the universe began. Given we can look in opposite directions that gives a maximum size of the observable universe of 28 billion light-years.
How can anything more than 14 bln LghtYrs away be visible to us?
Sandy (09:49:11) :
How can anything more than 14 bln LghtYrs away be visible to us?
Because space has expanded. Take a galaxy that we now observe to be 10 billion light years away. Its light that we see now was emitted 10 billion years ago and in those 10 billion years space has expanded so the galaxy is now some 25 billion light years away. We see it now where it was 10 billion years ago, not where it is now.
Lucy (09:48:28) :
so it is safe to say Weinberg falls into the category with Darwin and Edison of scientists educated with religion who went on to reject it.
It takes men of that caliber to free themselves from the shackles of religion. You seem to suggest that they could not have made there discoveries if they had not received religious instruction.
Leif Svalgaard (10:17:14) : It takes men of that caliber to free themselves from the shackles of religion. You seem to suggest that they could not have made there discoveries if they had not received religious instruction.
One of the greatest champions of individuals and individual rights (and an atheist), lived in the center of true absence of religious influence (Soviet Union) but in the complete influence of State beliefs. Ayn Rand, much like Darwin, rose to denounce the belief system that stimulated the collective conscience around her.
Darned extremists.
Lucy (13:32:46) :
rose to denounce the belief system that stimulated the collective conscience around her.
I’m now waiting for you to do the same.
Back2Bat (11:47:55) :
“IF government were to put an end to this, it would do so by replacing a myriad of individual beliefs with a single belief. It is not difficult to guess which scenario will most greatly limit the advancement of science.” Lucy
“I’m in love.”
Yea, and now we’re either going to have to either fight for her or share.
Glenn (17:29:03) :
Yea, and now we’re either going to have to either fight for her or share.
Well, since I haven’t done a 40 day fast yet, I am caught unprepared for the unexpected “Lucy”.
Thanks for the laugh!
Leif Svalgaard (13:45:23) :
Lucy (13:32:46) :
rose to denounce the belief system that stimulated the collective conscience around her.
I’m now waiting for you to do the same.
I denounced the Republicans years ago. Why?
Lucy (18:25:25) :
I denounced the Republicans years ago. Why?
“much like Darwin…” Did he also denounce the Republicans?
Lief,
Since time does not seem limited in the forward direction [if disagree, explain how], then the observable limits are not finite either.
The observable limits of the universe are expanding because the universe is expanding. But it is always limited by the actual size of the universe – meaning, the size of the event horizon of the Big Bang. It doesn’t matter if it is 25, 50, 100, or 100^100 billion light years across, it is still limited, finite, and even calculable. Only after infinite time could it become infinite, which means of course never – and even then only if the universe turns out to be open.
Your ideas about the event horizon are wrong. Information passes easily through an event horizon from the outside.
No, it does not. First, all information is destroyed at the event horizon. Second, neither light nor matter passes through the event horizon in either direction. Even light or matter falling into a black hole never actually passes through the event horizon, because of time and space distortions. At the event horizon, all time and space becomes infinite, and thus is torn beyond repair, and all information lost. Light and matter falling into the event horizon encounter such severe time distortions that it takes an infinite time to actually reach the event horizon, which means it never actually gets there. So any information from outside the observable universe never makes it past the event horizon. The only theoretical exception is gravity waves, which have yet to be directly detected, although there are indirect indications that they exist. As yet we have no means of either detecting or using them to see outside the visible universe.
The most obvious indication that mass exists beyond the observable universe is the accelerating expansion of the observable universe. This is thought to be driven by gravitational both attraction from outside our universe, and Black Hole Hawking Radiation, by which our universe is slowly “evaporating” (Hawking Radiation is quantum energy that is able to pass through the event horizon via wheelchair).
And gravitational waves do exist.
Leif Svalgaard (19:19:49) :
Lucy (18:25:25) :
I denounced the Republicans years ago. Why?
“much like Darwin…” Did he also denounce the Republicans?
By his actions Darwin denounced the forced belief systems of the church, and proffered his own beliefs; which interestingly enough you now desire to force on others through the state. If I denounce anything it is you and your ilk who seek to use collective force to control that which should occur naturally through freedom of association.
I am however, amused by the irony of a self-professed atheist seeking religious confessions.
Leif Svalgaard (10:17:14) :
Lucy (09:48:28) :
so it is safe to say Weinberg falls into the category with Darwin and Edison of scientists educated with religion who went on to reject it.
“It takes men of that caliber to free themselves from the shackles of religion.”
So those who “free themselves” are of that caliber. I suspect the “silent majority” would disagree; many have and do change or reject some or all of their religious upbringing, and not all of course are of the caliber of Darwin or Edison. It’s a preposterously pseudo-scientific thing for you to say, Leif.
You seem to suggest that they could not have made there discoveries if they had not received religious instruction.
Lucy suggested no such thing. Pamela said in essense that science would only increase in an absence of religion in school, and Lucy challenged that: “So do you have even an example to support this idea?” Kind of like I have tried to get you to support some of the other ridiculously extreme claims you have made.
conradg (19:39:12) :
Second, neither light nor matter passes through the event horizon in either direction.
Allow me to quote Roger Penrose [one of the foremost experts on cosmology and black holes] from his book “the road to reality”, page 712:
“Although the horizon has strange properties, the local geometry there is not significantly different from elsewhere. As noted above, an observer in a space ship would notice nothing particular happening as the horizon is crossed from outside to the inside”
Glenn (21:12:26) :
“So do you have even an example to support this idea?”
The scientific illiteracy in America is a superb example of that.
conradg (19:39:12) :
The observable limits of the universe are expanding because the universe is expanding. But it is always limited by the actual size of the universe – meaning, the size of the event horizon of the Big Bang.
There is no event horizon surrounding the Universe. An event horizon has a center at a distance R = 2MG/c^2 from the horizon. There is no such center in the Universe. If you disagree, show me where it is.
Lucy (21:03:48) :
By his actions Darwin denounced the forced belief systems of the church, and proffered his own beliefs; which interestingly enough you now desire to force on others through the state.
It is called education in science, or science literacy.
Leif Svalgaard (21:34:09) :
Glenn (21:12:26) :
“So do you have even an example to support this idea?”
“The scientific illiteracy in America is a superb example of that.”
A superb example of the same baseless claim. Say it enough times and some will be convinced, eh?