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 (14:33:12) :
Zeke the Sneak (14:06:30) :
But if I confess, and do not deny, but confess
Science is not about confessing or denying, so there is still a long way for you to go.
Back2Bat (14:14:47) :
Why is it that the Universe is even observable from earth? The Solar System could easily be in a thick dust cloud. Oops there goes astronomy!
It could be, and once [or more] was.
Why does nature correspond (at least roughly) to mathematics? A gentle learning curve?
Perhaps because we have evolved and adapted our mathematics to describe Nature, e.g. Newton’s invention of calculus to describe motion.
Keep ridiculing ID. But your side is driven to postulating an infinite number of UNDETECTABLE universes to avoid insurmountable probability problems.
There may in fact be such. Or each of these universes may have life in many places. The IDer could have had his hands full. Would He have followed the same model [I’m poorly put together, so is evidence against ID] everywhere, or is there a learning curve there too? “””
Don’t know how this got into a discusssion of inconsequential discussions.
My humble opinion; mathematics is pure fiction; we made it all up in our heads, and as Leif said, for the purpose of describing the behavior of our equally fictitious models of what we think the universe is.
And we know it is all a fiction since absolutely nothing we describe in mathematics, actually exists anywhere in the universe; there are no points or lines or circles or ellipses etc, they are fictional.
As for multiple universes; IMHO anything we can “observe” as in detect the presence thereof, by any means or mechanism; no matter how bizarre is a part of THE Universe. Anything we cannot detect by any means or mechanism, no matter what; simply has no place in science; philosophy maybe; but science is about that which we can observe; observe meaning detect the presence of by any means, no matter how strange.
In my view, anything that “exists” must have at least two properties. The first property, would be that property whose observation led to the postulation of the existence of said “thing” say a neutrino; but no fair using that single property to detect the thing; since that is a circular reasoning. So if it doesn’t have at least one other property it is not detectable; and therefore does not exist (within the field of science).
And that is entirely my humble opinion. Parallel universes, and strings are BS as far as I am concerned; and so far nobody has detected either of those.
Here is a similar example, carried out, neither by a professor nor a group of PhD’s, nor even officially, but by an undergraduate student.
This British born and parented student was brought up in a cosmopolitan city, outside of the UK exposed to numerous nationalities, and eventually earned a very high quality school leaving certificate.
The student wanted to continue education in the UK, and so we traipsed around various universities in order to see them, close up.
We met lecturers and tutors, many of whom kindly gave up their time to see us.
Most appeared not to be familiar with the student’s certificate, even though it was internationally recognised.
Eventually a university in the West of the UK was chosen, and term commenced.
The first thing our student noticed, for the first few terms, was the apparent slackness or lack of work ethic among staff and students. Our student, living on the Continent, was familiar and at ease with, a highly intensive work program, from day one.
The next thing noticeable was the left-wing views which were seemingly promoted at every turn, and the apparent comfort the fellow students found with these views.
Our student very quickly learned that to query such views was to invite a torrent of attack from seemingly everywhere.
So, quietly, without advertising the fact, our student carried out a survey of all of the available newsagents within or near to the university, asking “for a survey” (which it was) of actual numbers of newspapers that were sold each day/each Sunday.
The results surprised us all. The actual distribution of sales of newspapers on this superficially left-wing campus reflected exactly, to within a small percentage, the national distribution. Newspaper sales in the area were also a reflection of the national average
In other words, the students were not left-wing at all, neither were they right-wing, but it was prudent for them to appear to be so.
This survey was carried out about 20 years ago.
The student had anonymity then and it continues today, to protect against harassment.
However, the result would appear to support the results shown in your article today.
In how many other fields of endeavour would we find if we searched diligently enough, similar results?
One first-century Rabbi is credited with saying, “If you are on your way to plant a tree, and someone tells you the messiah has arrived, finish planting your tree, and only then go out to greet the messiah.”
The apparent urgency of a cause, having a strong belief system, or being part of a majority opinion, does not excuse us from using our brains for more than ballast in our heads. I would hope that, by the time the college kids are ready for retirement, they realize that their own original thoughts, opinions, likes and dislikes, should be worth more than any poll.
Having been a teenager during the ’60’s, though, I can now laugh at the fallacy of thinking we were all being so individual . . . by all dressing and talking alike. Ah, the days of youth and ignorance . . . and occasional stupidity.
Very perverse study indeed: linking “extremism” with “vocal expression” is simply suggesting to 1) encourage knowledgeable people to shut up for only extremists are vocal 2) those who speak up should not be trusted since they are after all extremists. In any case, speaking up is disqualified. the first point applies to the speaker while the second applies to the audience of the speaker. There is no better way to muzzle dissent.
As much as there are on every sides of an issue disturbed zealots that can either be silent or vocal, one can see the perverse effect such study can have if instrumented by the dominant side of an issue:
Truth is it is much easier to appear calm and unfeathered when one is on the dominant, powerfully backed up by media campaign side of the AGW issue while the blattant discrimination suffered by many scientists or informed individuals who are skeptics or realists may wear off the nerves of the best reasonable ones and induce a tendency to more vocal, radical expression just in order to only be heard in an ocean of dominant propaganda.
Then, it is easier for the dominant side to quote this study and simply dismiss any objection.
Mark Bowlin (11:25:32) : “The voices in my head tell me I’m not extreme…”
Well, the voices in MY head say you are. Neener-neener.
“”” 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. “””
I like that little gem. Here we are almost a year since the last election; and every day I see many cars that still have Obama/Biden Bumper stickers and the like.
Even during the pre-election process, I don’t recall ever seeing a McCain/Palin bumper sticker; cars with those bumper stickers were likely to be in the shop having a keying scratch removed.
While Liberal Political statements seem to go unchallenged (freedom of speech), just try voicing some “conservative” message in the form of a bumper sticker, or a flyer or news bulletin; even removed from news stands by oponents. It is highly likely to get vandalized; because “conservatives” are the big evil.
The double standard is too obvious to be in doubt.
Let me point out the all extreme views are leftist.
All extreme governments present and past are of socialist underpinnings.
We are meant to believe that the right hold extreme views but this is a misconception. Even Hitler was a leftist.
Basically all subversion is a leftist trait.
“Back2Bat, you do a good job of personally illustrating the point of the original post, but it does not reflect well on you. You are a pigmy biting the ankle of a giant!” Dan Murphy
Ask Leif if his ankle is bleeding.
My points are all the more pointed since a mere pygmy is wielding them. I like Leif and he is talented but wrong is wrong whoever says it.
Very interesting …. conclusions I have contemplated every time I see a Suburu Outback roll by with a liberal bumper sticker (common here in Colorado), as well as a few community projects I have been involved in, where there has been a small, but very vocal minority, trying to stop what the overall community wants.
“What has poor Leif done to deserve this?” Sandy
Does this mean our date is off?
Leif took a swipe at ID and I took a swipe at him.
Back2Bat (14:54:03) :
(Until the next time you set me off. : ) )
As I said: comes out of the woodwork…
George E. Smith (14:57:32) :
And that is entirely my humble opinion. Parallel universes, and strings are BS as far as I am concerned; and so far nobody has detected either of those.
The science bit comes in in predicting and searching for things that would be observed if there were a parallel universe. The neutrino is a good example of this. Or even the ‘atom’. It was only 100 years ago that we found observable evidence of the existence of atoms.
Back2Bat (15:54:51) :
Ask Leif if his ankle is bleeding.
Your bite isn’t powerful enough…
Back2Bat (16:04:17) :
“Leif took a swipe at ID and I took a swipe at him.
Denouncing junk is not a ‘swipe’
I just put your in the place among the other cults, and if you like that cult, being recognized for belonging to it can hardly be called a swipe.
About ‘faith’: A countryman of mine [Soeren Kirkegaard] defined faith thus: I believe, because I have faith, not because it makes sense, but precisely because it is absurd. If if made perfect sense it can hardly be called ‘faith’. Faith is believing in something that does not make sense, ‘taking it on faith’.
Science is not about faith, but about being forced to a conclusion by experimental evidence. Often, said conclusion is at variance with ‘common sense’, but so be it.
The study had only 37 subjects, and by scientific convention 5% of these would be considered to be non normal or extremists. Extremists in this case would fall at either end of the spectrum, it’s a two tailed design, (or should have been). That gives a bit less than one extremist pro alcohol, and a bit less than one extremist anti alcohol. I would suggest the sample size is just too small to draw any conclusions.
Anonymity also makes people more inclined to make extreme statements than they would in person. Combine the two forcings:
1) Anonymity makes one bolder; and
2) Extreme people are more inclined to express their views;
and it inevitably leads to ultra-extremist blogs. But I doubt anyone is surprised about this … it’s common sense really.
“Your bite isn’t powerful enough…” Leif
I spoke the truth so either I am deluded or you are. Since outside your field you seem rather shallow, I’ll go with me.
Too bad you can’t graciously concede a point. Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
“Faith is believing in something that does not make sense, ‘taking it on faith’.” Lief countryman
LOL! Actually faith goes beyond the facts but not against them. Stick to solar science is my suggestion.
Back2Bat (16:42:27) :
either I am deluded or you are.
Your words speak for themselves…
“I just put your in the place among the other cults, and if you like that cult, being recognized for belonging to it can hardly be called a swipe.” Leif
Actually, I value truth and logic. I do mind swipes at them. Since your position requires faith in undetectable universes my position is more logical since there is plenty of historical testimony to a Creator who “stretches out the heavens” (cosmic expansion anyone?) but no historical testimony for alternative universes.
Live and learn but humility is the secret to greatness.
Reply: No more debate of Faith, Science, and personal belief. And as always. I don’t care who started it. ~ ctm
Back2Bat (16:46:45) :
Stick to solar science is my suggestion.
as you will stick to faith instead of science. Fair enough.
Reply: No more debate of Faith, Science, and personal belief. And as always. I don’t care who started it. ~ ctm
Peace, Leif.
I will only be seen as cruel if I continue. Let’s agree to disagree.
Back2Bat (16:56:16) :
I will only be seen as cruel if I continue
Not cruel, silly.
Reply: Leif? It’s Miller time ~ ctm
That was fun! I like Fat Cow myself.
Make that “Fat Tire” as I reach for another one.
The study didn’t say how much alcohol the students had drunk when they were surveyed.
I’ve enjoyed the banter by Leif Svalgaard and Back2Bat. While I believe in the ID concept, I won’t engage a person that requires evidence to be convinced. If he can’t see it, he won’t. It requires faith for this moment. I would only like to add an aside.
Dan Murphy (14:55:38) :
The giant walks among pigmies, generously helping out where he can, and some of the pigmies call him conceited in their rage. Human nature, I guess, but still pitiful.
Back2Bat, you do a good job of personally illustrating the point of the original post, but it does not reflect well on you. You are a pigmy biting the ankle of a giant!
Dan, I grant that Leif is, not doubt, of very good intellect, however, blindly idolizing science(ists) is what got us in the whole AGW mess to begin with. I submit that everything has a purpose. Nature shows us this every day. From the smallest of microbes to the largest of mammals, each has a function and purpose. Be it by design or by happenstance, we see that it occurs. What, then, is the purpose of man? Surely, the rest of nature can take care of itself (many think it would be better off without the interference man creates). Or are we here only to ensure that sharks don’t eat all the fish? Or, perhaps, we are just a food source for mosquitoes. I think it’s worth a thought or two.
James Sexton (17:36:56) :
What, then, is the purpose of man?
Well, none that I can see. [even after a Miller or two]. ‘Purpose’ implies ‘intention’.