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.
#

Leif Svalgaard (19:09:32) :
The mere act of observing your words causes you to change their meaning.
Perhaps it is that I’m getting through to you and you are beginning to understand what I’m saying.
Indeed I do understand you much better than I did at the beginning of the thread. Unfortunately that understanding is inversely proportional to respect.
George Orwell understood you too.
Leif Svalgaard (16:32:48) :
[it was even illegal for Negroes to preach the word of the Lord in this shining bastion of freedom].
That’s what governments do Leif, but then, you know that, don’t you?
Lucy (19:27:42) :
[it was even illegal for Negroes to preach the word of the Lord in this shining bastion of freedom].
That’s what governments do
That is what local governments do, governments elected by the local folks and acting on their behalf and likely with their concurrence.
This springs from the attitude those folks were impressing on their children and on their elected representatives at that shining moment in the history of this great Nation.
The first was Poland in 1588. Leif
I did not know that. Thanks. I am 1/2 Polish
Hi[e] thee to the University Lucy
The campus police would probably arrest me and thow me in a cell with a Jesuit who would probably hang himself.
“But I do agree that government should be as small as possible. “ Leif
Yes, as small as possible and with decisions devolved to the lowest possible level, IMO. The ideal government would be a monarchy headed by a perfect king but even in this case I expect He would not wish to micromanage His subjects otherwise why did He make us in His image?
[ending religious debate ~ ctm]
[ending religious debate ~ ctm]
[ending religious debate ~ ctm]
[ending religious debate ~ ctm]
Back2Bat (07:52:05) :
(Interestingly, the slaves in Greek society allowed the intellectuals the leisure to develop science and mathematics.)
and the slaves in colonial America allowed their owners the leisure to effect a revolution in the name of freedom.
“(Hint, it wasn’t the education department 😉 )” Lucy
Lucy, I would probably love a nice EE teacher or perhaps a High School English teacher to correct the meter of my rhymes. In fact, if I could locate MY High School teacher (and she was available), well, that would be interesting.
[ending this religious debate ~ ctm]
Just stop the religious debate. I may have to go back and clean up more of this.
Leif Svalgaard (20:03:17) : That is what local governments do, governments elected by the local folks and acting on their behalf and likely with their concurrence
A government that has in its contract the ability to dominate it’s citizens, and purposes to operate outside of the natural order of government, and which governs people who are liberty illiterate (literally and Leif-ly) will always engage in suppressing the rights of individuals.
Local governments however, offer the potential of freedom. Don’t like your governments’ policies about preaching religion? Move to another community. That didn’t work for the slaves because they were neither free to leave nor free to stay away after they escaped. The federal government (all the way up to the Supreme Court) provided an interstate network to all lower governments in capturing and returning runaways.
at that shining moment in the history of this great Nation.
Like I said above, it’s all been downhill since Washington refused the kingship. The refusal of the newly established government to abide by the Constitution it had just created for itself in the matter of slavery is a prime example of that. Such is the nature of the beast.
Poor Charles! I was finished anyway. I thought this nice, nearly dead thread was appropriate.
This all started when Leif took a swipe at ID (Intelligent Design). If you will snip my religious statements, fine. However, if you do not snip his snipes at ID then you err since his anti-religious statements are of a religious nature since they are not logical.
Hey Leif, it was fun. Best wishes. Let’s call a truce less we wreck the moderator’s nerves. If you continue to rail at ID then know that mere politeness (and fear of being banned) keeps me from responding.
Mr. Moderator,
You may snip all my comments on this thread, if it makes your job easier. I am sorry to cause you pain.
Leif,
My email again is:
moonbat1775@cox.net if you feel the need to respond to anything I’ve said.
adieu
Back2Bat (10:03:33) :
If you continue to rail at ID then know that mere politeness (and fear of being banned) keeps me from responding.
I don’t rail against ID specifically, but against any form of bigotry and anti-educational and anti-scientific issues. I took a swipe at ID. You took a swipe at me personally. Big difference.
“You took a swipe at me personally. Big difference.” Leif
Indeed I did. I apologize. I really do. It won’t happen again intentionally.
I love science and I love education but there is a lot of pseudo-science going around and calling itself science. So what’s to be done about it? Someone said that science should be agnostic and I agree. What is dividing us is the origin of life and macro-evolution. Neither of these has been proven in the lab though micro evolution has been. It (micro-evolution) is statistically possible given the huge numbers and rapid reproduction rate. The need for a Creator with regard to macro evolution and the origin of life itself has not been ruled out and I object to teaching students otherwise. Is that unreasonable?
Again I apologize. I do get hot sometimes being somewhat of a fool.
Back2Bat (13:51:15) :
“You took a swipe at me personally. Big difference.” Leif
Indeed I did. I apologize.
Accepted.
Leif
“Accepted.”Leif
Thank you.
Steven
Leif Svalgaard (11:10:55) : I took a swipe at ID. You took a swipe at me personally. Big difference.
Odd how this little interplay represents one of the greater problems with “modern science” – the politically motivated half truth.
Leif did indeed swipe at ID, and Back2Bat did indeed take a swipe at Leif. But Leif is omitting the swipes he took at the individuals (including Back2Bat) who indicated an interest in a philosophy outside his paradigm. Worms, brainless, fried-brains, fraudsters, pushers, all before Back2Bat opened up with “conceited”.
Lucy (16:26:04) :
Worms, brainless, fried-brains, fraudsters, pushers, all before Back2Bat opened up with “conceited”.
These were in general terms and not directed at any particular named individual, and may, in fact, not apply in aggregate to all. One might add “misguided” [often by parents] to the list.
Lucy,
I lost my temper, pure and simple. I was not aware of any provocation other than the attack on ID.
Let’s pack up this thread since it is getting too hard to find.
I’m outta of here.
Blessing to all.