I'm currently sitting in on a Clio Society presentation being given by Univ. of Chicago professor Cass Sunstein. He's speaking about how group dynamics has a tendency to exaggerate group viewpoints when people in a group all agree to begin with. Three conservatives as a group will vote more hardline than the average position in the begin. Thus agreeing groups have a tendency to radicalize. It's all very interesting...
Some points that are interesting:
- People in a group who lack self-confidence will tend to the middle ground, while more confident people will tend to be more radical. By increasing the confidence in a person, the person can be made more radical.
- People will become more radical when with similar-minded people, as the person's tendency to want to differentiate themselves from the group will push the person's position farther than the original position.
- A change in people's position will initially depend upon their initial position. If one person is more extreme than another, the extreme person of the two will become much more extreme in degree than the one who was less extreme to begin with.
- Views differing in government by the design (culture of House v. Senate) of the Constitution served to ward off extremism.
- Inability of gov't to censor speech combined with requirement that parks and streets be open (public forum doctrine) makes it more difficult to self-select as they are open to a more heterogeneous group of people in the parks and streets. 20th century "streets and parks" are the newspapers, news shows, and other media.
- Internet and similar media can be an avenue for more balancing dissenting views, or more radicalizing self-selecting views. Depends on use of medium.
- Sunstein ponders whether gov't should have power to limit right of assembly in order to combat self-selection and promote people taking in alternative positions.
- Question from audience about extremism of Fox News and whether it is too right-wing and a problem, or whether it is a counterbalance to the traditional liberal media.
- Bush v. Gore: Problem that both Dems and Reps accused each other of trying to steal the election, leads to problems when both had legitimate claims, leading to unhealthy polarization between conservatives and liberals.
- Questioner really puts it to Sunstein whether situation is better with or without Fox to counter Peter Jennings. Sunstein says that a unified media is an Orwell nightmare, where polarized competing media is a Huxley nightmare. Orwell is worse, but Huxley is still pretty bad. Two radical media outfits does not create enough of a diversity of views. Lessig's worry about copyright and speech is more of an Orwell nightmare.
- Abortion and capital punishments are two issues that are not influenced by how judges are seated. A Republican (and Democrat) will vote the same on these issues whether they were sitting with two Republicans or two Democrats.
- Strange question from left field whether judicial supremacy should be abolished when people are willing to defer on question of morals. I don't know if I know where this guy is coming from with the question. Sunstein supports judicial review because it promotes heterogeneity in government and is more often a check on abuses than a check on advancement.
- Comments on Bill O'Reilly. Tough guy on camera, "sweetheart, pussycat" off the air. O'Reilly's comment on Chicago protest: O'Reilly dismayed that protesters pulled police resources from other legit police activities such as terrorism. Sunstein views police as a cost of free speech in this case, O'Reilly viewed this as a waste.
- Question about presidents tending to center despite surrounding themselves with like-minded people. Sunstein thinks that Bush may cultivate internal disagreement for an optimal outcome. To original question, Sunstein thinks that public opinion is an external check that keeps polarization in check. Primary elections tend to extremism, while general elections tend to bring candidates to the center.
- Another O'Reilly question -- is O'Reilly just a good actor and a case of entertainment overtaking public policy? Is O'Reilly more interested in making a good show instead of honestly questioning guests?
Trackbacks
Comments
Post a commentNote that by posting a comment on this site using this form or any other software tool, you have agreed to the advertising terms of this site and you agree to submit payment for any advertising in the comment above as outlined in the advertising terms. This applies to ads posted in the URL or Comment fields above.
![XHTML](../../xhtml.png")