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.
#
Zeke the Sneak (19:03:31) :
I have to wonder at this point if have been mistakenly using the word “education,” when your true meaning is better served by the word, “indoctrination.”
To return to the topic: ‘impressing one’s belief on others’ [which some of you consider good] is better served by ‘indoctrination’.
Lucy (19:09:28) :
They know the only way they can get their beliefs passed on to the next generation is to force them on other people’s children.
Starting, of course, with their own children.
Leif Svalgaard (19:29:21) : In all of this, the right of the child is being neglected.
I believe [and clearly y’all . . .[snip].
Okay, again.
“If the State enforces certain “standards” on the private schools, a far worse crime against the children is committed. For if the parents’ selection of instruction is completely free and unhampered by State coercion, they, knowing and loving the child best, will be able to select the best type of instruction that they can afford. If they hire tutors, they will choose the most competent for their child. If they can select any type of private school, they will select that type which is best suited for their child. The advantage of unlimited development of private schools is that there will tend to be developed on the free market a different type of school for each type of demand. Schools will tend to be developed especially for bright children, for average children, and for dull ones, for those with broad aptitudes, and for those for whom it would be best to specialize, etc. But if the State decrees that there may be no schools which do not, for example, teach arithmetic, it would mean that those children who may be bright in other subjects but have little or no aptitude for arithmetic will have to be subjected to needless suffering. The State’s imposition of uniform standards does grave violation to the diversity of human tastes and abilities.” – Ludwig Von Mises
Your suggestions will cause children to suffer. Leif, you don’t like the individual or the concept there of. You do not trust people. You trust the state.
LOL, Leif, when you put all your ideas in your book, you should keep in mind that titles such as Mein Kampf and The Little Red Book of Quotations, are already taken.
But you will want to use some humor, I like this joke: Did East Germans originate from apes? Impossible. Apes could never have survived on just two bananas a year.
This is a good one too: Q. “Why do the KGB operate in groups of three?” A. “One can read, one can write and one to keep an eye on the two intellectuals.”
Leif, I think you’re number 3.
Some might be interested in this article on how religion is decimating our potential for science literacy.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/print_friendly.php?ID=or_20091024_6967
Oh wait, you’ll need to replace “religion” with “state promulgated beliefs”.
Ah, the quote in my post above is rightly credited to Murray Rothbard, not Ludwig Von Mises. My apologies to the gentlemen.
Lucy (20:40:10) :
Leif, you don’t like the individual or the concept there of. You do not trust people. You trust the state.
I don’t care who gives the education to the children, as long as they get it along the lines I have described. Experience shows that parents often do not have the best interest of the child in mind, because the impress their beliefs on it, e.g. in question of ID or age of the Earth, etc. It is a crime to cripple a child’s mind from the beginning by such aberrations. By public education, I do not mean the state, but the education you get in public schools, which can very well be funded by local communities [as most of the time are]. The local school boards [e.g. Kansas] sometimes fail to do their job in a satisfactory manner, and this should not be excusable on grounds of individualism, because a child is being deprived.
Hey Lucy,
I am a big Rothbard fan. Mises is great too. He predicted the Great Depression. I think I’ll be great too and predict this one. Oops! Too late.
Leif Svalgaard (21:13:16) :
“I don’t care who gives the education to the children, as long as they get it along the lines I have described. Experience shows that parents often do not have the best interest of the child in mind, because the impress their beliefs on it, e.g. in question of ID or age of the Earth, etc. It is a crime to cripple a child’s mind from the beginning by such aberrations.”
What experience is there that shows that “impressing” parental beliefs of “ID or age of the Earth” have a detrimental effect on their children? It is certainly not a crime. Did you skip the critical thinking part of your scientific education? But since you are a professed global warming sceptic who places most of the blame on natural variability rather than human influence, replace your “ID or age of the Earth” with AGW:
************
“The Board of Education voted to change existing state science standards to include the phrase “analyze and evaluate different views on the existence of global warming.” […]
“Dr. Ramon Alvarez, a senior scientist with the EDF says:
“In a last-minute assault on science and sensibility, the board appears to be supporting its own ideological views rather than those of proven science. Experts around the country, including the tenured faculty of Texas A&M’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences, agree that our climate is warming and that humans are responsible.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-3420-Cleveland-Weather-Examiner~y2009m4d11-All-Texas-school-books-will-question-global-warming-other-states-to-follow
“Indicating doubt about the existence of global warming, today’s final vote on textbook language by the Texas State Board of Education flouts leading scientific consensus as well as the board’s own scientific advisors.”
http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=9463
Aren’t you flouting scientific consensus by posting here, Lief? Perhaps you really wouldn’t have as much of a problem with “teach the controversy” of ID alongside evolution, adding the anthropic principle, or mentioning various religious views in class, were it not for your radical atheistic view of religion.
We can’t have children “analyzing and evaluating different views on the existence of global warming”, now can we.
***********
Lief:
“By public education, I do not mean the state, but the education you get in public schools, which can very well be funded by local communities [as most of the time are]. The local school boards [e.g. Kansas] sometimes fail to do their job in a satisfactory manner, and this should not be excusable on grounds of individualism, because a child is being deprived.”
No judgement of child deprivation was given in the Kansas case, Leif.
Glenn (23:15:24) :
What experience is there that shows that “impressing” parental beliefs of “ID or age of the Earth” have a detrimental effect on their children?
it makes them science illiterate, to wit many posts on this very blog. And in an age where correct science is paramount, that is detrimental.
Leif Svalgaard (19:33:17) :
Zeke the Sneak (19:03:31) :
I have to wonder at this point if have been mistakenly using the word “education,” when your true meaning is better served by the word, “indoctrination.”
“To return to the topic: ‘impressing one’s belief on others’ [which some of you consider good] is better served by ‘indoctrination’.”
I haven’t seen anyone here consider indoctrination good besides yourself.
Leif, perhaps you could explain what you mean by indoctrination. You’ve said “Children should be taught that the base is not invariant”. Does teaching some scientific theory as being fact approach indoctrination? Would the failure or refusal to allow students to analyze and evaluate different views be considered a method of indoctrination?
How about this one:
“John Houghton’s market-leading textbook is now in full colour and includes the latest IPCC findings, making it the definitive guide to climate change. Written for students across a wide range of disciplines, its simple, logical flow of ideas gives an invaluable grounding in the science and impacts of climate change and highlights the need for action on global warming.”
http://cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521709163
Should science be telling students what *should* be done in the future?
From a 1996 study by Michael Sanera, Ph.D on Wisconsin textbooks:
“However, the vast majority of textbooks emphasize global warming theory, citing the catastrophes predicted by global warming theorists. To avert these catastrophes, according to the majority of texts I reviewed, immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gases are necessary.
The vast majority of texts, however, provide little information about the work of scientists who do not subscribe to global warming theory. Most texts do not explain the weaknesses of the computer models on which global warming theory is based nor do they mention their weaknesses as predictive instruments. No text mentions that the pattern of warming causing so much concern does not parallel the rise of CO 2 in the atmosphere as would be the case if global warming theory were certain. Nor are students told that climate change predictions are highly speculative and that 20 years ago a group of scientists looked at the temperature record and predicted that a new ice age was coming. Few texts include possible beneficial aspects of global warming, should it take place. A more balanced exposition would inform students of both sides of the global warming debate and motivate them to consider a wide range of possible answers and solutions.”
Looks like indoctrination to me.
Leif Svalgaard (00:03:08) :
Glenn (23:15:24) :
What experience is there that shows that “impressing” parental beliefs of “ID or age of the Earth” have a detrimental effect on their children?
“it makes them science illiterate, to wit many posts on this very blog. And in an age where correct science is paramount, that is detrimental.”
There are many reasons for why anyone here that is scientifically illiterate. Several times now you have made and refused to support this ridiculous claim. Being scientifically illiterate isn’t defined by belief in, support of, or advocating ID or young earth.
Troll on.
Glenn (02:16:35) :
Being scientifically illiterate isn’t defined by belief in, support of, or advocating ID or young earth.
It is part of a definition. One might make it different from mere ignorance. Ignorance is not problematic, it can be cured by simply telling you the things you don’t know. I view Illiteracy differently, namely as what one might call ‘willful ignorance’, that is, rejection of a body of knowledge because it conflicts with religious or ideological beliefs. It is failing to appreciate, or outright reject, the scientific method, that interlocking web of hard won, self-correcting ways of investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, and correcting and integrating it into previous knowledge. Today it is even ‘hip’ to be illiterate [Tom Cruse – Scientology]. It is anti intellectualism. Refusing to use that wonderful brain, evolution has produced, etc, etc.
@ur momisugly Back2Bat:
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.
There is no greater evil than suppressing the individual. It matters not if the sun spins backwards in the sky if mankind is enslaved. Of what value is science if man is not free to explore it? Of what value is life if man is not free to live it? General Stark said it best back in the brief and shining moment of Freedom “Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils”.
The “Rights of the Child” movement is one of those irrational beliefs adopted by the liberty illiterate, power hungry, with a susceptibility to (or intent to abuse) emotional manipulation. (What better appeal than to combine the sympathy for children with the natural desire for rights?).
I have yet to see anyone argue that children do not need someone to make decisions for them. So we will start with the premise that children need oversight, guidance and direction.
Now, we have the question of who is best suited to provide that – so scroll up and read every post I’ve made thus far, again.
Thus the concept of “Rights of the child” is completely disengious. The “rights” are merely a listing of what the State says can and cannot be done with children. By making this list of child-rearing do’s and don’t’s, the state is assuming the role of decision maker for the child. This list limits the actions of the parent, and as we know, “limits” are enFORCED. One might be tempted to think this indicates a desire on the part of the state to share oversight of the child with the parent, and so it does, to the degree the state would still like for you to clothe and shelter the child out of the money left over after the state has extracted enough to pay for it’s part in the child-rearing.
If you think this sounds like a parental divorce proceeding where the state gets custody and you get one weekend a month, you are exactly right. With the “rights of the child” the state is divorcing the individual. It is saying we don’t want you in this relationship anymore, you are expendable. Those that are liberty literate will easily grasp the significance of this reversal of the way government should function (and still pretends too). Those that are history literate will identify the Marxist underpinning, and those that can think critically will shudder in their boots.
Children have the natural right to be reared by just their parents. A government should only step in to limit bodily harm, the same role it should play with adults.
The anti-federalists were right.
Let’s cut the young earth crap, many Christians and Jews believe the earth to be 4 billion years old or so just like modern science. The 6500 year old earth theory only goes back to the 1920’s or so and was a foolish attempt to refute evolution by not allowing it enough time. Before then, it was acknowledged that the earth was far older.
Set up them straw men and burn em down.
6500 years or 14 billion makes no difference, life is statistically impossible. Hence Leif’s side must appeal to an infinite number of Universes and the anthropomorphic principle to account for it.
Science and probability theory. Maybe we should exclude both from education?
http://www.reasons.org
Lucy (08:06:38) :
So we will start with the premise that children need oversight, guidance and direction.
In addition to that, they need a modern education. Need to learn about the world, need to learn where we all came from, need to learn how things work, need to learn how to be critical thinkers.
All your shining rants about freedom etc are fine, but not relevant to the main point, how to provide children with the education they have the right to and how to avoid crippling their mind from the beginning.
Back2Bat (08:35:10) :
Let’s cut the young earth crap, many Christians and Jews believe the earth to be 4 billion years old or so just like modern science. The 6500 year old earth theory only goes back to the 1920’s
Goes back millennia. Usher [1650] calculated the creation of the world to have occurred 23rd October, 4004 BC.
And no matter how old this number is, it is still a fact that a large number of American’s believe it to be correct. One can quibble about what the percentage is. 44%, 40%, or in that neighborhood. the fact is that it is large. This is what you get by parents impressing their beliefs on their children combined with a dysfunctional educational system.
life is statistically impossible.
This is another example of what one gets from a failed educational system.
Perhaps this is helpful: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtml
And as we have discussed, the Universe is infinite anyway. But this is really irrelevant to the origin of life.
Leif, great website. I also like the experiment that allows you to cook up a batch of what is basically stringy DNA. I have seen public middle school students do this in class. They love playing with the stuff, pretending to blow it out their nose when they pretend sneeze.
I like this one best because the DNA is stringy instead of white cloudy beadish stuff when done.
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/BioChem_p015.shtml
“And as we have discussed, the Universe is infinite anyway. But this is really irrelevant to the origin of life.” Leif
The mass is not irrelevant as I will demonstrate (roughly). Take the mass of the entire observable universe, multiply it by 10^26 to account for inflation, convert it all to just the amino acids that life uses, let it simmer at an ideal temperature for 14 billion years and you will still not get the simplest conceivable life form capable of evolving by chance alone. The odds are on the order of 1 in 10^400. Statistical impossibility is defined as 1 in 10^50.
I keep up with general science Lief; your side is still desperately scrambling to rule out a Creator. Meanwhile, you wish to teach children that He doesn’t exist? To what end?
Dr Hugh Ross is far more qualified than me both technically ( and temperamentally) to argue with you and as a fully qualified scientist he genuinely cares for fellow scientists. The mathematically incompetent biologists have led the hard scientists astray.
If you have the guts, try corresponding with him at http://www.reasons.org. He is a true gentleman, I am not.
@Lucy,
Whatever made you think I disagree with you? That quote of the Jesuit motto? In fact, I was raised Roman Catholic till the 7th grade. I escaped that indoctrination and became an evolutionist. Then I escaped that indoctrination and became a Bible believing Christian. Hence my joke about giving me a Jesuit for seven hours.
@Leif,
Cut the cracks about my education. I notice that despite yours you have come to an illogical conclusion (How does one prove a Creator does not exist?) and a philosophically silly one since it renders your life meaningless. But you wish to compel that viewpoint on other people’s children?
Feel free to indoctrinate your children as you wish and then we’ll see whose natural selection favors, why don’t we?
Back2Bat (10:42:25) :
@Lucy,
Whatever made you think I disagree with you? That quote of the Jesuit motto? In fact, I was raised Roman Catholic till the 7th grade. I escaped that indoctrination and became an evolutionist. Then I escaped that indoctrination and became a Bible believing Christian. Hence my joke about giving me a Jesuit for seven hours.
I’m sorry you took it as disagreement, I only meant to add to what you said. I wondered if you appreciated the LVMI motto, the rest of the post was for the general viewing public (and I don’t think contradicted anything you wrote).
Back2Bat (10:25:07) :
Statistical impossibility is defined as 1 in 10^50.
Ross’s calculation is wildly invalid. Many, if not most, of his factors are not independent and are not related to making life possible. We have already observed 400 extrasolar planets and more are discovered weekly. There are probably more planets in the Universe than stars and roughly one in every system will be in the ‘habitable zone’ where life [as we know it] can evolve. Most biologists are of the opinion that life is easy to make [some are even trying to], and that life may have originated several times on Earth, only to be snuffed out by sterilizing collisions, but each time starting over. Most of Ross’s factors are related to formation of stars and planets and since we know that these exists can be excluded from the calculation. We have been talking about science illiteracy, which is not mere ignorance, but the inability to reason when up against ideology or religious belief. You and Ross are good examples thereof.
He is a true gentleman, I am not.
We know that.
a philosophically silly one since it renders your life meaningless
I give meaning to my life.
@Lucy
Dear,
We are simpatico.
The [Mises] Institute’s official motto is Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito, which comes from Virgil’s Aeneid, Book VI; the motto means “do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.” Early in his life, Mises chose this sentence to be his guiding principle in life. It is prominently displayed throughout the Institute’s campus, on their website and on memorabilia. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute
Yes, both Ludvig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard were heroes in this unworthy world. They both paid a price for fidelity to truth.
“Ross’s calculation is wildly invalid. Many, if not most, of his factors are not independent and are not related to making life possible. “ Leif
You apparently did not read the footnote:
“Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters ≈ 10^388
dependency factors estimate ≈ 10^96
longevity requirements estimate ≈ 10^14
Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters ≈ 10^-304
Maximum possible number of life support bodies in universe ≈ 1022
Thus, less than 1 chance in 10282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.” from http://www.reasons.org/probability-life-earth-apr-2004
And then that is just to enable the possibility of life. The actual genesis of life is much, much less probable.
“I give meaning to my life.” Leif
A single small blood vessel could rupture in your brain and poof! goes your meaning. In any event you shall die. Will your reputation live forever? Not likely even if the earth is not destroyed by a wondering black hole, a nearby supernova, a gamma ray burster or maybe just an asteroid we might have deflected except for the money wasted on the CO2 scare. Most people will only remember Newton, a devout Christian, and Einstein, a Jew who often spoke of “The Lord”.
oops! I failed to correct a couple of mistranslated exponent(^) symbols in that footnote. Insert ‘^’ where appropriate.
Leif Svalgaard (09:57:46) :
relevant to the main point, how to provide children with the education they have the right to and how to avoid crippling their mind from the beginning
There is no such thing as a right to education. That is a fairy tale you have invented for yourself, to give you some sense of meaning in the cosmos that taunt you every night.
So I have no idea how you will possibly begin to formulate a logical argument to support this fairy tale you believe in.
Back2Bat (11:50:32) :
You apparently did not read the footnote
Yes, I did. The point is that for most of the factors, the value must be one, because stars and planets already exist. Only about six numbers determine the physical characteristics of the universe that we live in.
You, apparently, did not study the link I provided for you carefully. Please do so, and report back with your assessment or rebuttal of each section.
A single small blood vessel could rupture in your brain and poof! goes your meaning
since I’m gone too, what does it matter?
Most people will only remember Newton, a devout Christian, and Einstein, a Jew who often spoke of “The Lord”
and Osama, the devout Muslim. Newton and Einstein are not remembered for their devoutness.