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.
#

How we view ourselves is a very legitimate investigative area. The fast food industry, retail, and hospitality businesses hang on every word. Why? Because it has the potential to increase sales and thus the bottom line. The results are often robust as well. It is very hard to change how you think about yourself. I thought the study was a little light on subjects but the idea was a good one. Do this study again at Oregon State and you will have a much larger subject pool willing to participate. The hardest part would be trying to find moderate anything as the control. Oh wait. That means I would fit under the category of thinking that everyone is an uber-intelligently-designed conservative. But on second thought, all the potheads attend the University of Oregon. And the moderate liberals down there all think that everyone is a liberal-green-hash-head. Ya know what, it IS fun to make anecdotally based generalized statements!
Wow Lief you got em coming out of the woodwork.
Regarding your comment about scientific literacy, I do believe you have overestimated the state of things.
Things are the way they are because nature always takes the path of least resistance regardless of appearances.
Back2Bat (04:12:13) :
My last word on the subject
One can only hope so.
This universe is too young and too small (mass wise) for life to have originated here by chance alone.
This universe is infinitely large [Omega = 1, i.e. flat]. And life does not get started by throwing stuff together at random. Life has very likely started several times over on this very Earth, only to be snuffed out by planetary collisions, e.g. the one that created the Moon.
Take it or leave it. I can’t put it any clearer.
One must leave it, as you have clearly demonstrated lack of knowledge about this.
SamG (05:04:36) :
Mr. Bat, while agree that all things are conceivable, it doesn’t make sense that it should all boil down to one denomination.
For the believers there is only one true denomination.
MartinGAtkins (06:00:53) :
My point was that though some of the absurd postulations may irritate you, they do no harm.
The ideas do not harm. The people who hold them, are the harm-doers.
Should faith based subjects be taught in school? My view is yes but they should be approached as philosophy and not science.
‘Faith’ should be thought in schools [Hinduism, Islam, and a smattering of others; curriculum time permitting]. Faith-based subjects are neither philosophy nor science, and should not be taught (in public schools) [think madrases], expect in the context of examples of folly.
New or not it’s a pigs ear and does not work reasonably well.
I have reviewed hundreds of papers over time. Just last week I reviewed two [one accepted with minor revision and one rejected]. The reviewers do mostly a superb job [unpaid and often unrecognized].
peer review should be open to scrutiny by all stake holders. That includes the great unwashed tax payer.
I agree with that and am doing my part to make that happen. c.f. this on my website: http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati%20Referee%20Report.pdf
and this:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20Dst%20paper%20by%20K%20and%20M.pdf
and this:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20Clilverd%20et%20al%20Reconstructing%20aa.pdf
and this mother of them all:
http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Doubling%20of%20Open%20Flux.pdf
The last one is a review of one of my papers [which was rejected at the time – although later analysis (even by the reviewer) has proven me correct, e.g. as outlined here http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf and on this very blog].
Several of us are working from within the system to achieve full transparency, e.g. with the reviews published as electronic attachment to the papers. This is a long hard slug, but will eventually get there. An important function [present in the current system and should be retained] is that the review should not be a free-for-all peddling of the reviewer’s own viewpoints. Equally important is the removal of pay-walls so that the unwashed masses can actually read the papers.
If you have nothing better than the corrupt system you have now then you can’t complain when the people consult witch doctors and shamans who’s methods and transparency are equal to the spivs who run your institutions.
I can assure you that the system is not corrupt [although with human being there are always bad apples] and that north of 95% of the cases, the process works well, and the unpaid reviewers are doing the public a great service.
I have taken onboard the rest of you post and hope you don’t think my views are in anyway a personal attack on you or the late Dr. J, Eddy.
compared to some of the stinky stuff that is flung my way, yours is a measured, dignified, and glowing contrbution.
peer review should be open to scrutiny by all stake holders. That includes the great unwashed tax payer.
I agree with that and am doing my part to make that happen. c.f. this on my website: http://www.leif.org/research/Dikpati%20Referee%20Report.pdf
and this:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20Dst%20paper%20by%20K%20and%20M.pdf
and this:
http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20Clilverd%20et%20al%20Reconstructing%20aa.pdf
and this mother of them all:
http://www.leif.org/research/No%20Doubling%20of%20Open%20Flux.pdf
The last one is a review of one of my papers [which was rejected at the time – although later analysis (even by the reviewer) has proven me correct, e.g. as outlined here http://www.leif.org/research/Comment%20on%20McCracken.pdf and on this very blog].
Several of us are working from within the system to achieve full transparency, e.g. with the reviews published as electronic attachment to the papers. This is a long hard slug, but will eventually get there. An important function [present in the current system and should be retained] is that the review should not be a free-for-all peddling of the reviewer’s own viewpoints. Equally important is the removal of pay-walls so that the unwashed masses can actually read the papers.
Here is a good article about scientists and blogs: http://www.leif.org/EOS/PHTOAD000062.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (10:59:26) :
You see the same phenomenon even on this blog where very vocal pushers of pseudo-science are trying again and again to peddle their strange [at at times, extreme] views under the guise that Mainstream Science is faltering and that therefore any hare-brained scheme must be valid. Science literacy in times like today is more important than ever and from reading these weird posts we often see here, one might get the impression that it is lower than it [hopefully] is.
The article suggested extremists were more prone to push their view when they felt they were in a majority. The idea that “Mainstream Science is faltering” can easily be concluded by reading the news reports on said Science. There is a terrible tendency to pull invalid conclusions from obscure inconclusive studies (pick your topic) because the reporter feels comfortable that such a conclusion represents mainstream feelings. Thus the absence of science literacy among reporters can easily appear to be a faltering of mainstream science, if such is not pointed out.
Unfortunately, all to often the favorite “scientists” of the illiterate reporters are indeed faltering, and “mainstream science” goes largely unproclaimed.
Back2Bat (04:12:13) :
So life did not originate in this universe. Now imagine a super universe which, unlike this universe is infinitely old, then life would certainly originate from chaos. That life would be God. Once formed, He could have then created this universe and the life in it.
——————-
“God(s)” could quite easily evolve (or have evolved) in this universe simply by an intelligent life form reaching the “Singularity” described by Ray Kurzweil.
If humans reached the singularity this century, as implied by Kurzweil in “The Singularity is Near”, the IPCC predictions for 2100 are going to look beyond silly, as if they don’t look silly now, and as if anyone will care at that point.
Why are we wasting money on AGW garbage when we could be performing more real science towards reaching the Singularity in our lifetimes ??
Steve in SC (06:59:58) :
Wow Leif you got’em coming out of the woodwork.
Regarding your comment about scientific literacy, I do believe you have overestimated the state of things.
My hope is that the illiterates are just like the folks Anthony describes that push their views in Chico by shouting louder. My fear is that your are correct and that it is bad. Judging from some of the postings here, it looks grim.
This is a fleshed-out version of something I have been saying for years (at least since the Carter years): “He’s been so far to the left for so long, it looks like the middle to him.” I apply it routinely to politicos and journos.
Leif Svalgaard (07:26:22) :
Here is a good article about scientists and blogs:.
So in your case Leif, is it altruism, acclaim, reputation, or renumeration?
Tim Clark (08:42:20) :
So in your case Leif, is it altruism, acclaim, reputation, or renumeration?
Altruism is a little bit too loaded for my book, but the text under the heading says it better:
“Some […] believe outreach and dissemination are as important as curiosity and discovery. Some ]…] dislike inaccuracies and mistruths {love that word} that they instinctively correct erroneous information they encounter”.
Skipping back:
Life (on Earth) exists solely as the method for DNA to replicate.
Any other purpose is secondary. What we are is what we made ourselves.
Well, it was fun watching the beer take effect. I turned off my instincts to correct every misspelling and just read for the fun of it. Haven’t enjoyed anything this much since Debate 201.
Leif Svalgaard (08:55:48) :
Tim Clark (08:42:20) :
So in your case Leif, is it altruism, acclaim, reputation, or renumeration?
Altruism is a little bit too loaded for my book, but the text under the heading says it better:
“Some […] believe outreach and dissemination are as important as curiosity and discovery. Some ]…] dislike inaccuracies and mistruths {love that word} that they instinctively correct erroneous information they encounter”.
Ahhh, but I think it’s more than that, you enjoy it too much. ;~D
CodeTech (09:53:31) :
Life (on Earth) exists solely as the method for DNA to replicate.
stated differently: a chicken is an egg’s way of making another egg. Still, there is no purpose or intent of part of the egg.
Leif,
My primary concerns are fractional reserve central banking, the CO2 scare and pointing out that belief in a Creator is throughly logical, in that order.
I said that was my last word on the subject here so I won’t bother refuting you further.
Tim Clark (10:20:02) :
Ahhh, but I think it’s more than that, you enjoy it too much.
Perhaps the folks enjoy the show, moi, I’m just being dumped upon. Here is from another thread:
“And we have seen this repeatedly in the AGW debate. Dr. Svalgaard, sadly, is caught in this spider’s web of self-delusion.”.
This is thin gruel in the enjoyment department.
What ranks high in that department is a recent debate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGrmYR50jJ8&feature=related
on Iraqi TV that contrasts the view of the world from Holy Scripture and from Modern Science [BTW the science guy also makes an error: the mass of the Moon is not 1/6 of the Earth’s, its surface gravity is]. Sadly, this kind of conviction can be found here too, and all too often.
Leif,
Observing the frequency of those who misspell your first name, I wonder it it’s because they were taught the rule “I before E except after C” in their school days? That works most of the time at least for english words with a long e vowel sound, but not for proper nouns. Out of curiosity, does your name rhyme with “leaf” or with “waif”? I think both ways are in common use.
D Johnson (12:25:11) :
long e vowel sound, but not for proper nouns. Out of curiosity, does your name rhyme with “leaf” or with “waif”? I think both ways are in common use.
In Danish there is only one form: ‘waif’ or as I rather prefer ‘life’. The other spelling ‘lief’ is not so bad as it means ‘dear’ or ‘dearest’ in Dutch which we also speak here at home [in California].
Thats awesome that more people then expected are sharing opinions. If you don’t share your opinions your voice will never be heard. But remember actions do speak louder then words or opinions.
Any homeowner’s association could tell you what this article is saying. Mine attempted to enforce a ban on homeowners parking in the street overnight, and they enacted overnight visitor registration and complete bans on non-functional vehicles on the property (don’t get me started on how it was so poorly worded that it technically banned owning a bicycle). The next meeting, they had record attendance, and the comments went for over an hour about how horrible the idea was. It cost a fortune in legal fees to enact a regulation on 1,800 homes for something that about a dozen people actually wanted.
Back2Bat (11:06:49) :
I said that was my last word on the subject here so I won’t bother refuting you further.
I’ll accept one more word. How many planets did the creator put life on, in this infinite universe?
“SamG (03:59:47) :
conradg, surely after that experience, you’d denounce leftism?
No, I denounce stupidity. There’s plenty to go around on both left and right.
And honestly, I don’t really blame the general left-liberal gung-ho attitude towards global warming on the political types who embrace it. Must of them are just taking scientists at their word, trusting that they’ve gotten this one right. There might be some advocacy groups who are knowingly exaggerating the scientific basis for AGW, but even they are genuinely convinced that it’s in the right cause. But honestly, if I believed the general scientific “community” who are promoting AGW, I’d be a gung ho reductionist as well. So it”s not the politics that’s at fault in my view, it’s the scientists who have exaggerated their case. I’m not really sure what someone like Obama should do, when all his top science advisors are telling him AGW is a real threat. The left is at least trying to honor the science – unfortunately, it’s the science community that seems to have blown this one big time. The left may embrace the science in part because it goes with their political narrative, but they aren’t, for the most part, willfully trying to distort the science. It’s scientists who are doing that. And it’s science that’s going to pay the price, all the way around, when this fiasco comes crashing down as I suspect it will over the next decade or two.
I’ve tried arguing to progressives in embracing the entire AGW movement that they are facing the same kind of retribution as Bush, Cheney, and the Neocons are now reaping over the entire Iraq invasion – all the exaggerations about a “slam dunk” case for WMDs have destroyed the credibility of the neocons to a man. And progressives will face the same kind of denunciation when the AGW theory collapses due to lack of actual future warming. Looking back, it will become rather obvious that the signs were there all along, but were ignored because the politics was just too attractive. But most progressives simply aren’t science-oriented, and they don’t know how to skeptically evaluate the science. They just trust that Hansen and the climate community has this one nailed down. And they simply won’t listen to anyone expressing sckepticism. Certainly they should be more open-minded about this, but honestly, scientists are supposed to be trustworthy. Laymen and politicians aren’t supposed to have to figure all this stuff out on their own. Science has really dropped the ball here, or failed to speak up due to cowardice and indecision. They too will reap some serious consequences down the line.
And to think this all evolved from a study of drinking.
I would like to loudly reclaim that I am a firm believer in global warming.
I am also a vociferous proponent of global cooling.
‘just depends on if it is a hot or cold day. Luck would have it that there is a beverage for all types of weather. Time for another drinkie.
Have you noticed that when people get a couple of drinks behind their belts thay tend to get louder and sometimes they get right in your face and breath on you? Quite taxing.
Leif Svalgaard (16:25:03) :
Back2Bat (11:06:49) :
I said that was my last word on the subject here so I won’t bother refuting you further.
I’ll accept one more word. How many planets did the creator put life on, in this infinite universe?
Seems to me that once beliefs become esoteric/metaphysical there is not much to be gained in trying to refute them by logical arguments. It is easy to disprove that an old man with a beard created the world logically, but the metaphysical theories of consciousness, which in a sense create a collective God, are as irrefutable as a belief as is the belief that I am sitting here typing this communication.
The difference between experiential and experimental. Sitting inside the head and looking out and believing there exists an objective reality.
It is better to agree to disagree on the beliefs about experience an interlocutor holds, than try to find “proof” that he/she is wrong.