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.
#

Let us not forget Sir George Bernhard Shaw:
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
Perhaps it is a virtue to be less reasonable 😉
Unfortunately this does not address all the harm caused by unreasonable “men.”
I think I’ll offer up a sound bite on this discussion of probability between several of the posters.
In the absence of Reality, Probability reigns supreme.
Just a thought.
I think that are at least two different paradigms that explain the polarization occurring at the national level. The study sited explains a lot of the emotional reaction that we see.
A second paradigm is one that is discussed on this forum frequently but is not explained. This paradigm states that the proper place for political decision is found on a continuum from a technocracy to republic citizenship.
For a scientist, the closer his political beliefs are to a technocracy, the more he wants to be identified as an expert within his peer group. Recognition within the peer group creates a tacit responsibility for support from society and the government. If a scientist’s beliefs are closer to republic citizenship, his emphasis is in explaining his workto all who are interested.
For a politician, the closer his political beliefs are to a technocracy, the more politics is exercise in representing “recognized” experts, and carrying out the advice of the experts. Discussion by citizens on expert’s theory is irrelevent. The only relevent discussion is who best recongnizes the experts and who is best in converting expert theory into political action. Because discussion outside the expert peer group is irrelevent, the only reponse to such discussion is to point out that the speakers are either not experts, or that they are not experts recognized by their peer group.
For a politician whose beliefs are closer to republic citizenship, citizens and the representatives have a civil duty to evaluate expert theories and advice where it impact polical decision. There is the recognition that the public will not always choose the correct political course from a technical point of view, but there is also a recognition that unless political decisions are made by citizens that the citizen becomes a subject and loses all responsibility for the support of the government.
This paradigm explains the move to dominate the scientific bodies described by Richard Lindzen. It explains why James Hansen can complain about being muzzled. It wasn’t that he couldn’t say what he wanted, it was that government didn’t move to implement his suggestions. It explains why AGW says that the science is settled, because only the general agreement of the recognized peer groups are relevent. It explains the lack of debate on AGW in the public forum. It explains the ad homonym attack on any diverging opinions.
By definition, the readers of this forum are closer to the republic citizenship side of the continuum, with the exception of the posters whose message is that the discussion (web site) is irrelevent, and harmfull to the functioning society.
I’m a left-wing liberal climate skeptic, and a bit ashamed of what’s going on with some on my side of the specturm. A few days ago I was at ThinkProgress, a Progressive blog, trying to get a reasonable conversation going about climate change, and I was quickly labeled a right-wing partisan ideologue and accused of being in the pay of the oil and coal industries. It was hilarious but sad. I was treated to endless ad hominem attacks, without hardly any scientific content. One of the strangest parts of it was hearing Richard Lindzen repeatedly described as an “extremist”. I don’t see quite how one can use that word to describe him, but it seemed perfectly reasonable among these folks. My basic sense is that this whole climate “debate” has become so polarized that the only way it’s ever going to be resolved is after a couple of decades of actual climate change in one direction or another, or the lack thereof.
Leif Svalgaard (17:50:50) :
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’.
Strange, perhaps it is the brand. I’m on my 4th Busch and am now full of self-import!!!
So, then, are we an aberration? Nature gone wrong? Are there other events and objects in nature that have no purpose? Or, perhaps there is a purpose that we cannot see yet?
“The speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands.”
–Paul Davies on the Big Bang
Dr. S, to be sure I do have a very, very long way to go before I attain this level of scientific literacy. Good evening.
Zeke the Sneak (19:04:14) :
Wouldn’t you have to be drinking something like Grolsch to be full of import?
I am pre-supposing you are based in the US… apologies in advance if you are Canadian >.>
Oops that was directed at James Sexton of course. Copy-paste-fail.
conradg (18:52:40) :
I’m a left-wing liberal climate skeptic,………. One of the strangest parts of it was hearing Richard Lindzen repeatedly described as an “extremist”. …….. My basic sense is that this whole climate “debate” has become so polarized that the only way it’s ever going to be resolved is after a couple of decades of actual climate change in one direction or another, or the lack thereof.
Sorry you had to go through that, I know both sides can be…….unreasonable. Sadly, though, I don’t remember studying any time in history which climate has ever been static, so, I believe we’ll see climate change for a while longer. I, too, never considered myself an extremist, (it is, of course, a very subjective word) but since I’ve been labeled that by many, I’ve come to grips with it. You should embrace it. Use it to become an extremist in the purpose of truth and justice. But be a cautious extremist and always consider the chance you could be wrong. (Yes, it sounds corny, but it works with the sleep thing.) Good luck and cheers.
Another study stating the obvious. Remember if it is not in a peer reviewed journal it doesn’t exisit. As well as applying this rule to climate science it particularly apllies to medicine. So much for all the human wisdom and common sense passed down over the ages, if its not in a journal forget it!
A bit of gender balance would go astray here……….
Mods.. would not go astray here…….
I like desert wines, so I just settle for being full of port.
Bulldust (19:14:51) :
Zeke the Sneak (19:04:14) :
Wouldn’t you have to be drinking something like Grolsch to be full of import?
I am pre-supposing you are based in the US… apologies in advance if you are Canadian >.>
No, right here in the great state of Kansas!!! While I hesitate to use the abbreviation lol here, I find it appropriate in this instance. Clever!!
Bulldust (19:14:51) :
Wouldn’t you have to be drinking something like Grolsch to be full of import?
I am pre-supposing you are based in the US… apologies in advance if you are Canadian >.>
You all see? This is how internet rumors get started! Grolsch is a Dutch beer. Moosehead is Canadian!!!!
Leif Svalgaard (17:50:50) :
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’.
Sorry, perhaps I missed the intent of your last post. I take it that your post implies there is no ‘intention’ in our world/universe. Interesting, considering you seem a very learned man intent and dedicated on discovering things unknown and revealing truths. If, indeed, there is no “intent”, then why the effort? I’m just asking because from a behavioral point of view, it doesn’t make sense. All the years in academia, all the study only to know the answers to your questions end in no purpose. Very curious. Of course, this is after a few more, so, I may be a little more thick than usual.
James Sexton (19:01:21) :
Are there other events and objects in nature that have no purpose?
There are no objects in Nature that have any purpose at all. There are man-made objects with a purpose, because we made them with a certain intention in mind. Now, some people have the hubris to think that they have or serve a purpose, but that is self-delusion, of course.
Zeke the Sneak (19:04:14) :
Dr. S, to be sure I do have a very, very long way to go before I attain this level of scientific literacy.
Indeed you do have a long way to go, but it is worth it. Although, I have a feeling that you’ll never make it.
James Sexton (20:12:35) :
If, indeed, there is no “intent”, then why the effort?
Two reasons:
(1) because it is useful to society and helps us survive which we like to do
(2) because I’m curious, but it is special kind of curious. If someone from the future would offer to tell me what science discovers the next 100 years, I would refuse the offer. The fun is in finding things out, not to be told how. The fun is the journey, not the destination. Why do people do jigsaw puzzles only to break them down again when they are done? Because there is fun in making the puzzle, not in having the finished result.
Churchill once said that a fanatic is someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.
Leif Svalgaard (20:25:19) :
James Sexton (19:01:21) :
Are there other events and objects in nature that have no purpose?
There are no objects in Nature that have any purpose at all. There are man-made objects with a purpose, because we made them with a certain intention in mind. Now, some people have the hubris to think that they have or serve a purpose, but that is self-delusion, of course.
Sigh, it must be the beer that urges me to respond. Usually, I don’t engage in such discussions, perhaps it’s your lack of vitriol that forces(of the external kind) this dialogue.
So, when the bee is compelled to pollinate and then provide sustenance, there is no purpose, just that wonderful happenstance of Nature, as is that keen process called photosynthesis and the myriad of other occurrences that ensures the many cycles of life. All hubris and self-delusion. How sad for the fellows such as Newton that provided the world with such profound hubris and self-delusion in his attempt to understand how Nature worked. But, if this is true, why, then study anything? Things such as the wonderful orb in the sky known as the sun? If it is all hubris and self-delusion, wouldn’t it be enough to enjoy the warmth it provides? Or the light that it emits? Who would care whether it orbits the earth or visa versa? And how would it matter? Why study the gases it consumes or the activity on that orb? Why wonder about the light that it radiates? Wouldn’t it be enough to enjoy the part of the spectrum that allows us to use our optical orbits? Apparently the questions ‘what’ and ‘how’ are the pertinent questions. Why seems impertinent. That’s strange to me because as I study history, the question ‘why’ is usually the most important question that leads to answers unrevealed by the questions what and how.
Cheers, James
Now just stop all this nonsense!
There’s barely enough room here for one solipsist.
None of you really exist anyway.
You’re just figments of my imagination, so knock it off. …you’re just figments, …you’re just, …you’re
not.
Leif(16.26.26)
Soeren Kirkegaard sounds like fun.
It got me to start wondering what he might say on peer-review, climate models, dendroclimatology, predictions(oops- projections), tipping points ……..:)
Leif Svalgaard (20:32:45) :
(1) because it is useful to society and helps us survive which we like to do
But apparently to no end.
(2)…….Because there is fun in making the puzzle, not in having the finished result.
My experience is that it is only fun when I have the finished result.(Missing puzzle pieces are indelibly maddening) I suspect it is the same with the great majority of us puzzlers. Regardless of how well one puts the puzzle together, it doesn’t mean whit unless it’s fully articulated. (That’s probably a consensus!!!)
I agree, that often it is the path(least taken) that gives us satisfaction, but always with a path, there is an end point. (Unless it’s one of those circular walking path that goes around a park which is another maddening occurrence. Why can’t they just walk down the sidewalk??) Sorry, I get tangential sometimes.
James Sexton (20:12:35) : to Leif
If, indeed, there is no “intent”, then why the effort?
For fun? enjoyment?
Well, I want to stick up for Mathematics, even though it is way out of topic.
I believe ( yes it is a belief, whether positing or negating) that everything is mathematics. The music of the spheres. In a universe where time is another variable, everything is an equation, within time waiting to happen/materialize.
Analogue: The quantum mechanical state function of an atom, which is fulfilled when conditions became appropriate in the Big Bang ( btw that point of the big bang is everywhere, the universe expanded out of it, so each point in the universe is the center :), a mind numbing thought). Everything is a mathematical state function waiting to be fulfilled within a time frame, from a rabbit to a star. O.K. throw in chaos, it is also mathematics :).
James Sexton (21:26:31) :
Apparently the questions ‘what’ and ‘how’ are the pertinent questions. Why seems impertinent. That’s strange to me because as I study history, the question ‘why’ is usually the most important question that leads to answers unrevealed by the questions what and how.
Since humans have intent, the ‘why’ becomes important for history. For an apple falling to the ground, the ‘what’ and ‘how’ are important, but there is no ‘why’. The apple does not any ‘intent’ to fall to the ground. And, as I said, study of nature is important for our survival and for our curiosity.