Partisanship and group polarisation

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Remember I started a thread a week or two ago decrying the fact that we seem to fall into two polarised groups? And how these become ideologically entrenched and make it more difficult to solve our big problems?

Unsurprisingly, there have been people studying this phenomon for years. Apparently, since the 1960s there has been a change in the dynamics of group behaviour such that, in general, groups of like-minded people discussing an issue will actually push the overall group concensus towards the extreme position, not the moderate.

Here's the abstract from a 1999 paper by Cass Sunstein, a law professor and social researcher:



Abstract:
In a striking empirical regularity, deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments. For example, people who are opposed to the minimum wage are likely, after talking to each other, to be still more opposed; people who tend to support gun control are likely, after discussion, to support gun control with considerable enthusiasm; people who believe that global warming is a serious problem are likely, after discussion, to insist on severe measures to prevent global warming. This general phenomenon -- group polarization -- has many implications for economic, political, and legal institutions. It helps to explain extremism, "radicalization," cultural shifts, and the behavior of political parties and religious organizations; it is closely connected to current concerns about the consequences of the Internet; it also helps account for feuds, ethnic antagonism, and tribalism. Group polarization bears on the conduct of government institutions, including juries, legislatures, courts, and regulatory commissions. There are interesting relationships between group polarization and social cascades, both informational and reputational. Normative implications are discussed, with special attention to political and legal institutions.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=199668

That surprised me a bit, but I guess it shouldn't have.

So it seems that the entrenched divide here in Spurstalk PoliticalTM is merely a symptom of wider society's increasing polarisation. :depressed

[101A]

So it seems that the entrenched divide here in Spurstalk PoliticalTM is merely a symptom of wider society's increasing polarisation. :depressed


...and the internet (in no small part) is to blaime.

Interesting.

[PixelPusher]

So it seems that the entrenched divide here in Spurstalk PoliticalTM is merely a symptom of wider society's increasing polarisation. :depressed
But we are decidedly NOT a like minded group here at Spurstalk PoliticalTM.

[xrayzebra]

I guess RNR means birds of a feather flock together.
But heck, everyone knew that to begin with.

But extreme is in the eyes of the beholder.

So There! Want to fight about it........ :madrun :ihit :dizzy :lol

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

The point was that a group of like-minded, otherwise moderate individuals will actual push their agenda towards the extreme not the moderate - not only that "birds of a feather flock together", but that those birds push each other towards more radical ideology. That explains why the lines here (and elsewhere) are so entrenched.

A worrying observation methinks.

[xrayzebra]

^^oh for goodness sakes, have a sense of humor.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Can't you tell, Ray, I am devoid of humour. ;)

[boutons_]

Internet is allowing more information of more and different types to flow to many more people.

The information power gap is decreased. The most powerful people used to have the most powerful information and kept it secret from the unpowerful.

People know LBJ lied about the Tonkin Gulf to justify ramping up the VN war.

People know the war-provoking sinking of the Maine was sunk by an internal explosion, not by an attack by Spanish.

People now know the WHIG/Repugs lied their way into Iraq. They could have known before the war, but the Repugs successfull intimidated the press into submission, compounded by the false belief that the WH could be trusted to operate in the best interests of the US, esp in times of crisis like after 9/11. We now know the WH started a war for purely partisan political objectives (get dubya re-elected in 2003 as a "war president").

Now, more people have more information, so they have more power relative to the top people in positions of power and authority.

A banal example: professional sports referees used to be very powerful and unchallenged. Now with the multi-camera, slow-mo replays, the entire world has information about the mistakes the refs made, so the refs lose respect and authority, and are bitterly challenged frequently.

And of course, birds of a feather.... So people who learn, have the info, that other people have the same views tend to flock together, and then the mob psychology kicks in.

In political terms, the national divisivenss and polarization has been worsened for 15 years by the sheeple/rabble/radical right than by the left.

Talk radio and TV is almost totally pissed-off red-state radical right assholes like Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. The Hagee/Robertson "religious" hucksters also strengthen their $$group, dividing it off from non-groups, by keeping them in constant state of emotional excitement by screaming non-stop about The Rapture, End Times, Apocalypse, OT fire-and -brimstone, you're going to hell if you don't do (and pay) as I say, etc, etc.

Christ's gentle message of "love and peace" doesn't bring in much $$$ or scare anybody. So it's OT bullshit scare-mongerig non-stop that brings in the $$$.