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.
#
anna v (20:30:39) :
It is better to agree to disagree on the beliefs
Of course, except that the beliefs should not be peddled as science.
conradg (16:42:54) :
Science has really dropped the ball here, or failed to speak up due to cowardice and indecision.
At least THIS scientist has not failed to speak up against pseudo-science like AGW, ID, EU, Astrology, etc, and will continue to do so.
The first moments of the universe are no more accessible to scientists than they are to prophets.
I think the Queen had it right. “I do not like to build windows into men’s souls.”
Zeke the Sneak (21:28:14) :
The first moments of the universe are no more accessible to scientists than they are to prophets.
And what is your evidence for that? For one, prophets can’t access anything before the last ~6000 years where we have some kind of history.
“I’ll accept one more word. How many planets did the creator put life on, in this infinite universe?” Leif
Infinite? I thought the mass of the universe was known. If so, that combined with the age of the universe puts limits on the probability of life forming in this universe.
Intelligent life? Just one, this one. The Lord might be doing some terra forming via bacteria and such on other worlds.
SETI keeps listening but no joy. The Earth is unique. There is a book called Rare Earth if you are interested. I have not read it myself but supposedly it is by two NON-CULTISTS.
Reply: What can I do to get you two to stop this without clamping down? ~ ctm
“SETI keeps listening but no joy. The Earth is unique”
Let’s assume we find a stone age tribe that’s had no contact with ‘civilization’. We decide to use hi-tech surveillance techniques to see them in their natural state.
If a hunter went to the shaman saying he thought he was being watched could the shaman logically reply:
“If anyone was out there, they’d have to communicate by drums, since that’s the only way to long-talk. We’ve heard no drums so there’s no-one there.”
Seriously, no star-going civilization with our metabolic rate would be using radio.
The creation moment is not a scientific certainty.
And coincidentally, whenever men and women are free to hold their own beliefs about that, a flourishing in science and the arts, political and religious freedom, and economic vitality are not far behind.
The Big Bang, or any other creation moment, is not a scientific certainty.
And coincidentally, whenever men and women are free to hold their own beliefs about that, a flourishing in science and the arts, political and religious freedom, and economic vitality are not far behind.
Back2Bat (22:05:56) :
Infinite? I thought the mass of the universe was known.
The mass of the observable universe at any time [and it gets bigger with time because light from further away can reach us at later times] is known. There was once a discussion about whether the universe had positive curvature [closed] and was finite, no curvature [flat] and infinite, or negative curvature [open] and infinite. Observations have long since shown us that the universe is flat and infinite. Finite means that if you keep traveling in a straight line you eventually end up where you started. Infinite means that you do not. In any case, the observable universe is but an infinitesimal small part of the whole universe.
Back2Bat (22:05:56) :
Just one, this one.
and how does that follow from logic? please outline the steps in the logical chain of propositions and theorems that lead the that conclusion.
Zeke the Sneak (22:39:36) :
And coincidentally, whenever men and women are free to hold their own beliefs about that, a flourishing in science and the arts, political and religious freedom, and economic vitality are not far behind.
Apart from the circularity [free to hold – religious freedom] the statement is false. The correct statement would be that when men and women do not impress their own beliefs on others – including their children – then a flourishing etc…
Leif Svalgaard (23:04:34) :
“In any case, the observable universe is but an infinitesimal small part of the whole universe.”
Ok,ok. I wasn’t goin to say anything, but hey, I like you Leif and after the ‘presision of words comment’, I just had too. 🙂
The word infinitesimal already means small or immeasurably minute or even a variable that has zero as its limit. So either you mean our known Universe is majorly minute in comparison to the unknown Universe or you were just emotionally bound to banter the concept of a small small part of the infinite.
Either way. I’m just teasin.
And thanks again for setting me straight on the whole magnetic vs electric theory.
p.s. Now when are you gonna write a article on Jupiters effect on the Sun? 🙂
“Observations have long since shown us that the universe is flat and infinite. ”
This is far from settled. And even if it does become settled, it does not mean that the mass of the unvierse is infinite, only that it’s spatial dimensions will expand forever. However, the Big Bang theory states that the universe has a defined and thus finite energy, meaning that it’s mass is finite also. So if the universe is confined to the one that began with the big bang, the universe is finite. However, if there are an infinite number of universes, then there is no end to them.
Further, if there turn out to be other dimensions, or metaphysical universes not defined by physical law, the size of “reality” can expand in other directions as well. Personally, I’m inclined towards that maximized infinite universe, which includes infinite physical, infinite metaphysical, and infinite dimensionally metaphysical universes without end. Just as there is no reason to think that our observable universe is the limit of physicality, there’s no reason to think that physicality is the limit of existence itself. Furthermore, quantum mechanics has demonstrated that what we observe does not become definable until we observe it. The secrets of the infinite universe are best found in the observing consciousness, not in what is observed.
conradg(16:42:54) :
“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.
To be perfectly blunt, this is nonsense. You simply can not plead ignorance in this day and age. Isn’t it convenient that the believers pick up the ball and run with it, no questions asked and then cast aspersions on the ‘denialists’. Kidding right? Sounds like you’re making concessions for them.
The need precedes the facts, which is why they have been forcing a specious ideology onto the world and hijacking the science. Like the notion of God, it is easy to believe in something that isn’t there or is not occurring in the present, away from material factuality. This simply confirms our illusions and emotional desires and removes the burden of proof.
You are neglecting the greenie/leftist agenda.
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.
Obama is a politician. Politicians do what’s popular. But Obama is a democrat so he has socialist leanings as well.
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.
And who will stand up and confess they were wrong; that they are culpable? Why, when they wanted it all along?? I think you will find that they didn’t believe in the science, the science backed up their agendas, which is why they won’t be hanging around when this fiasco finally comes to an end. Again, I think you misunderstand the greenie/leftist agenda.
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.
Bush-bashing was such a trendy thing to do. Sure, he wasn’t the greatest president but you’ll be hard pressed finding a leftie criticizing the Obama administration, even when he contemplates more troops in Afghanistan than Bush deployed in Iraq. Where are the protesters?
But sure, he’s about to send your economy down the toilet and you want to play sides?
I utterly dislike the contemptuous and sinister nature of the left, and the actions of a few imperialists don’t justify the complete dismissal of capitalism.
Some of the italics didn’t work above.
conradg (02:09:56) :
However, the Big Bang theory states that the universe has a defined and thus finite energy, meaning that it’s mass is finite also.
This you need to substantiate. If anything, the total energy may be zero, but that does not mean that the mass is zero.
david alan (00:05:55) :
The word infinitesimal already means small
The double quantifier was just in case he didn’t know what ‘infinitesimal’ meant. 🙂
Leif Svalgaard said:
Hmmm, I impressed my belief in the scientific method on my children.
Richard Sharpe (07:38:08) :
Hmmm, I impressed my belief in the scientific method on my children.
did it help? 😉 I’m reminded the response of a prominent scientist being asked how she promoted interest in science to her daughter: “with a stick”.
Perhaps ‘belief in’ in the above sentence should be better expressed as ‘acceptance of the usefulness [or power] of’. ‘Belief’ might be reserved for things that might be held to be ‘true’ [whatever that means], while the ‘scientific method’ is more of a process and in itself cannot be ‘true’, only the things we discover through the process might have a truth value. But, I’m quibbling. Anyway, I meant it in the sense just outlined.
How exactly has science ruled out God? Scientists can’t rule out the possibility that the LHC could produce fire breathing dragons,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/30/cern.particlephysics1
and even more startling to the average sensible person, scientists are even suggesting someone (or thing) from the future is tampering with the LHC
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?_r=2
is the faltering of Mainstream Science, simple scientific illiteracy, or simply the fact the the impossible could be possible, and only hubris rules it out.
Lucy (08:30:38) :
the impossible could be possible, and only hubris rules it out.
There is a certain misconception in this. ‘Hubris’ does not describe the state of affairs. Almost everything we think we know has been hard won and many things have not been to our liking. From a ‘human’ standpoint it would arguably be ‘philosophically’ more satisfying and make ‘sense’ to the layman] if Newton’s laws [and views on space and time] were correct, rather then relativity, if ‘classical mechanics’ were correct correct, rather than Quantum Mechanics, if Steady State Cosmology were correct, rather than Big Bang, if ID were correct, rather than Evolution, if fixed continents were correct rather than plate tectonics, if the solar corona was very light ‘coronium’ rather a million degree atmosphere, etc, etc. Unfortunately, our observations force all these ‘inconvenient truths’ upon us. So, our current [vast] understanding is not hubris at all, but humble acceptance of the fact that Nature is more different from what we would like to imagine, perhaps even more different from what we can imagine.
Leif Svalgaard (09:02:44) :
So, our current [vast] understanding is not hubris at all, but humble acceptance of the fact that Nature is more different from what we would like to imagine
That being said, there is grandeur in our current world view.
Leif Svalgaard (23:26:01) :
“The correct statement would be that when men and women do not impress their own beliefs on others – including their children – then a flourishing etc…”
How can free people be restrained from “impressing their own beliefs on others,” or from directing the education of their own children? This makes no sense at all.
“”” Leif Svalgaard (16:26:26) :
>>>deletions<<<
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. """
Not trying to be argumentative Leif; and of course you're entitled to your opinions too.
Neutrinons and atoms are concepts that were invented to explain the results of experiments that clearly showed the previous view of reality was inconsistent with experimental observations. Predictions made from new models that included the concepts of atoms, and subsequently neutrinos, were then observed experimentally; confirming the "existence" of those items.
As I understand the parallel or multiple universe concept; that is a prediction from some theoretical model, which itself has never been verified experimentally; and even the disciples of parallel universes say the nearest "other universe" is so distant from this universe; as to never ever be detectable.
And as I believe I stated specifically; should we somehow come to "observe" what we would now call a parallel universe; that merely, in my view would expand the scope of THE universe.
Let's not expand the discussion of whether Pluto isa planet or not (of course it is) to include whether some parts of THE UNIVERSE are actually other universes, rather than simply parts of the universe.
And I won't accept that something that "vibrates" in any manner that can be imagined to be analagous to the way a violin string "vibrates" is somehow a more "fundamental" primitive entity, beyond the level of quarks; that simply begs the question; "what are the structural elements of a STRING, that interract with each other to produce a vibration, and what are those gizmos that must be even more fundamental than the strings that are built from them.
And as I said, that is MY opinion; others can disagree; they will have a hard time convincing me otherwise; but they are free to try; I do have an open mind on the question.
“and how does that follow from logic? ” Leif
I am banned for 24 hours so you’ll just have to wait.
Wait. Since you were not banned for your outrageous insults, Leif, it will be longer than 24 hours.
REPLY: You post anonymously under a fake moniker, Dr, Svalgaard puts his name to his words, thus he gets more respect in such matters. Further, Dr. Svalgaard made no suggestions of violence as you did. That’s what got you banned.
My advice, if you want to be on equal footing, put your name to your words. – Anthony