Okay, so when someone here says that we should follow France's lead and ban headscarves in schools, I comment that there is nothing wrong with a show of modesty (it's not like a body-sack), I'm looked upon as a religious fanatic by many of the commenters here. If I am offended when someone here suggests that Michelle Obama smells like pancakes, am I seen as a moderate?

If I'm not mistaken, Larry, the questions raised by the research are more a matter of whether or not if one mistakenly believes that more people share one's views than actually do, does one then tend to be more willing to publicly share one's views? It's always tricky to introduce specific examples into generic questions, I find, yet what else is one to do in casual conversations, I suppose? Perhaps the question I'm asking myself, as with some of the questions I raised in The Pathology of the Blogosphere™, is whether or not I'm personally succumbing to such a feedback fallacy. When I enter into symposia outside of the self-selecting dynamics of on-line collectives, I tend to find that my behaviour moderates, so I'm a bit suspicious about what's going on.

Fascinating article, especially when it comes to how those of extreme beliefs influence their communities. When it comes to things like politics and culture, perception can quickly become reality. The lesson politically is that silence indicates acceptance in the eyes of others - so fight hot air with hot air?

Sounds like the perfect description of a liberal to me !!!

Paul in calgary .

i've never felt i had any difficulty distinguishing the sheep from the goats....

when i encounter people who Do i fall back on the 'least harm most good' measure of relative eschatological worth or economic value...

where was i ?...oh yes...something about a balanced involvement in the society while preserving certain inalienable natural rights...

Is piling hot air on hot air fighting, RL, or is it just escalating?
If one wants to kill hot air, shouldn't one be piling on cold air?

Of course the feedback of opinion affects the level of comfort one might have about an opinion.

But it works mainly for received wisdom .. opinions that are absorbed or adopted rather than for those that are evolved from experience and reason.

That's why lefticles pretty well always fall back on the same old rhetoric and the accusations that are intended to cast their detractors as being outside the group.
Basic Hive mentality.

They virtually never have the actual experience or reason to draw on.

And yes it does happen with conservative ideologues .... just not as often.

It happens often enough for them to say lefticles when moderates wouldn't ;-)

Well...that explains the comments section at the CBC news web site

I think, Biff, that the argument being suggested by these researchers is that such behaviour may even more importantly help explain things like comments at any blogosphere site in those cases where an excess (for some value of excess) of the participants believe that more people share their views than actually do. And to be clear, ok: I don't just wonder that about you, dear friends, I wonder that about me too. So it's fair and square. Something to think about. Food for thought, as it were.

You could say that this is also true of television personalities and political commentators. Even someone with a small following will still have a couple of percent of their audience who are rabid fans, and these rabid fans will regularly send praise-mail and act as an echo-chamber convincing these personalities that their views are very mainstream. In most cases, the opinions of these people are both mainstream and extreme at times; but I suspect they get far more praise mail when they make extreme statements than when they make mundane ones.

Aha! Excellent point, Anonymous. Help, someone
stop me before I bring up confirmation bias again ;-)

But isn't the topic that 'people with relatively extreme views may be more willing to publicly share ..(I'd use the word 'express' as more accurate than 'share')..than people with more moderate views?

That is, is the focus on that 'confirmation bias' of the collective, or is the focus on the emotional basis (as opposed to the rational basis)..of those views? Usually, someone with extreme views is heavily emotionally invested in those views and, like a bubbling cauldron, must release that pent-up steam almost constantly.

I therefore wonder if an extremist 'has to believe' that more people actually share their views, and that he is in the majority, or whether the extremist must emotionally, release his feelings about various issues...and also, he feels that more people MUST share his views. That's why he's constantly preaching and campaigning.

Glenn Beck - to pick a name out of a hat - is roundly mocked as an immoderate loudmouth - or words to that effect -- by virtue of the fact that he merely points out factual - incontestable - information about some of the denizens of the White House. This raises the important question of what constitutes an "extreme" expression. In common usage the term is *far* more frequently applied to conservative views than to liberal ones, to the point where conservatism and "extreme" are practically interchangeable in many quarters; conservatives who strongly oppose abortion and who voice their opinions outside abortion clinics, for example, are readily described as having extreme beliefs, or representing the extreme right, whereas eco-warriors who, I don't know, chain themselves to a drilling rig by their nose-rings, or fly in from Toronto with CBC cameras in tow to disrupt fourth-generation swilers, are more likely to be described as "activists." The views of a card-carrying communist - even one working in the White House, like Van Jones -- are never labeled as extreme unless said communist also detonates a bomb. Actually, scratch that: even someone like Bill Ayers, whose attempt to bomb a US army barrack failed due to a detonation failure, is rarely if ever referred to in the MSM as being - as having been - an "extremist."

Today SDA guest-poster EMG posted a great essay by Bruce G. Charlton, titled "Clever Sillies - Why the high IQ lack common sense", in which he makes the case that "'enlightened' or progressive left wing political values" are the result of high IQ-types over-using their intelligence in putative "problem solving," which concomitantly "(over-rides) those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense." As Charlton puts it:

"Since evolved common sense usually produces the right answers in the social domain...this implies that, when it comes to solving social problems, the most intelligent people are more likely than those of average intelligence to have novel but silly ideas, and therefore to believe and behave maladaptively. I further suggest that this random silliness of the most intelligent people may be amplified to generate systematic wrongness when intellectuals are in addition ‘advertising’ their own high intelligence in the evolutionarily novel context of a modern IQ meritocracy. The cognitively-stratified context of communicating almost-exclusively with others of similar intelligence, generates opinions and behaviours among the highest IQ people which are not just lacking in common sense but perversely wrong."

It's the other confirmation bias, if you will, one which labels everyday resistance to statism, whenever expressed in the vernacular, as not just evidence of confirmation bias, but also as immoderate or loud.

I find the common-sensical expressions of everyday commenters, even when they're steamed or ineloquent, to be more morally sound than the prescriptivist admonitions coming from those who, from a presumedly elevated seat, advise others to start abstracting more and to stop being so rude.

In Canada, the reflexive labeling of conservative, non-statist views as somehow "extreme" is, in a nutshell, the LPC's social legacy. In the last 40 years or so, accusations of conservatives' supposedly "extreme" and "immoderate" views have been all smoke and no fire - i.e. not actually a real-world problem when compared to apathy, indifference, over-intellectualization - i.e. bending over and taking it. The desire to not be "rude" - "extreme" or "immoderate," in some classifications - is largely what got us into a situation wherein good people don't kick up a fuss because they don't want to displease those who - just beneath their protestations of "immoderate" and "extreme" right-wing views - merely have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

The stuff Beck says is interesting.

Apparently, some are turned off by his emotional delivery.

Agree with Vit on the point that juvenile characterizations and name-calling add nothing to the debate.

Examples: Leftickles, leftards, Mao Stlong (amusing at first, annoyingly boring the more times it's posted).

If you take note of Hollywood, you see the premise is spot on. The extreme view eventually morphs into the mainstream view.

To illustrate an attempt to "broaden" childrens outlook/worldview, what 1990's childrens movie has a 9 year old call another "penis breath". (I'm not kidding!)

Set you free: I fully agree that, as you put it, "juvenile characterizations and name-calling add nothing to the debate." The neglected question -- and bear with me, it's a small point that doesn't in any way discount yours, and it's not a rhetorical one -- is this: is victory in every battle -- communism versus liberty, for example - determined entirely through a process of debate, with the winner determined by their demonstration of reason and emotional continence? Perhaps in a parallel universe, but not in this one - not yet. History's victors - those with the most social force, i.e. those who have their tendencies absorbed, at times unwittingly, by the populace - tend to be the most blithe, and calm, and condescending, and the most inclined to characterize their opponents as being somehow "immoderate"; put differently, the terms of the "debate" are always set by the victors and the would-be victors.

Should we assume that each blog comment is a contribution to a debate, and its efficacy determined by its logic? I think that's a dream-world mistake. Logic and debate would be the best possible process to determining who wins, but in the meantime, while we're waiting, *confirmation* - confirmation of bias - is, in a realpolitik sense, a strong, ineluctable force. When one's own beliefs being affirmed, even if ineloquently, illogically, or angrily, it creates a force with some utility. When there's reason to be angry with the liberties that others grant themselves, the inflammatory/illogical language of those who might share your beliefs isn't necessarily as salient to the outcome of the dispute as is the mere confirmation that others are equally angry.

Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but it is. Common sense doesn't always translate into eloquence, and concomitantly, eloquence doesn't directly correlate with the correctness of a perspective; William F. Buckley, if he were assigned the position in a debate of stating that the earth is a flat disc, could didactically tapdance on the head of an ineloquent opponent, but that wouldn't make him right.

Should every blog comment be viewed as a contribution to a debate that is delivered and measured for merit according to particular rules of order? In a perfect world, yes, but on the other hand it wasn't a Harvard debating team that stormed the beach at Normandy; those footprints were the end-product of an aggregate social force informed not by eloquence and Robert's Rules but rather by belief and collective anger - yes, anger - and animus. Is that motivation just? Not necessarily, but on the other hand, to pretend that one's enemies will in the final analysis be impressed or swayed by one's decency in addressing their views, as opposed to aggregate and confirmed force, is a fatal conceit.

Do ridiculously over-the-top, dumb, stereotyping comments which support my general position turn me off? Absolutely. Do they convince reasonable people on the other side to change their views? No, but they do let those people know that they're not unopposed, which can put them on their back foot, and force them to defend their positions in a debate, as opposed to asserting their position as the sort of inalienable truth that victors tend to slap down as a non-negotiable starting point to any debate. Don't underestimate the efficacy of stubborn-faced-ness - your opponents certainly don't. There's a real power in "Nuh-uh."

Sadly. At this point in social evolution.

Firm caveat: If the broad left are reasonable and entirely willing to be swayed by eloquence and debate, nothing I said is true.

Newsflash! Bitchy people make more noise!

Film at 11.

Only news to those who don't get out much, or pay attention to the world around them when they do.

Sometimes it's tough figuring out who the eloquent one is ... sometimes not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMLIOtBLqoU

Well who would have thunk it.Those that have no facts/figures on their side,have to scream louder and resort to name calling to try to get their "view" across. Next they'll be telling us there is salt in sea water, but none in fresh!

of course, this only applies to people who disagree with our views ;)

eastern paul

ET

by character played by Drew Barrymore. proof came later that the words corrupted her .

sarc off.

cal2 - sorry, but you've lost me. What's your point?

ET - Spielberg owns you

"will in the final analysis be impressed or swayed by one's decency in addressing their views, as opposed to aggregate and confirmed force, is a fatal conceit."

EBD,

That comment beautifully describes the idiotic 'soft power' that Lloyd Axeworthy flogged for years to no avail. I also sums up the futility of the Obama strategy to win over America's enemies, with the only power of his baritone voice and the words of his back-room scriptwriters.

Lots of big hitters on this string today. Thanks to EBD, ET and Vit for the great comments. There is much to consider in those points of view.

For myself, I often deliberately make provocative comments for entertainment purposes and for the sake of some humor. At least what I call humor. It makes me feel better to vent and sometimes I do embarrass myself when I go a bit over the top.

It is necessary however, to blow off steam when there is so much happening that is completely disagreeable and yet there is nothing an individual can do about it. Gathering here to vent is often nothing more than trying to get some confirmation that one is not entirely alone in one's views. It's a bit of comradery. Since most conservatives have jobs we don't get as many opportunities to gather with our political and social peers to run in the streets and break windows.

And Larry ... (first commenter) Who are you defending Michelle or Aunt Jemima? The 'smells like pancakes' reference is meant as a humorous insult to an evil, racist woman. It is she and her family that placed Obama in Daly's, Chicago machine and all the crooks that helped make him president.

The woman's thesis is about 50, or 150, years late. This is Madison Avenue 101, the basis of most sales, and all advertising. 'nother wheel, re-invented.

ET - I just mean cal2 just means the other ET.

Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.

As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.

SpuriouslyYours - I agree with your statement - but the unmentioned consequence is that the moderates sometimes end up drifting to one pole or the other - because they think that it must be "normal" to be that polarized.

Some folks here seem to be labouring under a lack of appreciation of the logic involved in Professor Morrison's argument. Morrison's hypothesis takes the form of a simple conditional: If A then B. The antecedent of her hypothesis, the conjunction A, is not about "bitchy", Spuriously Yours, it's not about eloquence, ∞², it's not about having facts and figures on their side, Justthinkin, and it's not about any of the issues raised in EBD's two-part tirade. Rather, the antecedent of Morrison's hypothesis is "people with extreme views [and who] have this false sense that they are in the majority". Her study provides evidence to suggest that given the conjunction in said antecedent, the consequent of her conditional, B, is valid, namely that "they are more willing to express themselves".

From there Morrison proceeds to conjecture that such behaviour can lead to a feedback cycle that generates an increase in extremism that would not be predicated without the input of those extremists with said false sense that they are in the majority. So, while many of the points raised above by some of you may or may not found to be correct (upon proper examination), the issue at hand here is in fact the matter of abnormal polarization, as Erik alludes to, though not, as I just mentioned, because of the "bitchy" conjecture raised by Spuriously Yours, but rather because of a false sense of majority and a tendency to extremism.

Nothing is said in Morrison's hypothesis about the case of those with a true sense of majority. Nor (because of the conjunction in the antecedent) is anything said about non-extremists. Nor is it said that people who are willing to express themselves publicly are extremists with a false sense that they are in the majority (you can't go backwards through a conditional like that). And nothing is said about people who aren't extremists with a false sense that they are in the majority, because in that case the antecedent of Morrinson's conditional hypothesis is not satisfied. Other than the normal modus ponens affirmation of the antecedent implying the consequent, all we can say, in this case using modus tollens, is that (assuming Morrison's hypothesis is correct) those who are not more willing to express themselves publicaly must then not have extreme views and this false sense that they are in the majority.

Perhaps it is easier to appreciate how very wrong so many people get so many scientific and logical findings when we see how a simple cloth-eared syllogism of the sort raised here by Professor Morrison causes so many to flounder.

From Iconoloclast : "...in order to provide the necessary evidence to establish my claim as the person who first coined the phrase The Pathology of the Blogosphere™.

The kid's ego wasn't there when they said that in cyberspace nobody hear your cry . He wasn't there when they repeated that the medium is the message. Internet is the extreme. It is not like any other structure before. People who are still projecting old social, media, communicative ideas onto it are simply look silly and goofy. People in power that are projecting old concepts will eventually get hysterical and violent.
Now, I am going back to my moderate monastery cell to study "Pathology of Gutenberg's press" and that extreme idea that democratic mob can rule over the kingdom and it's dominions.

Erik, Vit, I get you.

“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.”

But how is this any more novel than sports or music fans gravitating to their team/bands? More begets more, like begets like.

That said, I can appreciate Prof Morrison elucidating the effect.

Perhaps the novelty to blogites is that they are just as self-selective as the other media, despite their strident (and righteous) protestations to the contrary.

EBD, echoing de Niro, You ... you're good you. Splendid posts. I especially enjoyed: Firm caveat: If the broad left are reasonable and entirely willing to be swayed by eloquence and debate, nothing I said is true.. For this reason I have little patience with the Queensbury Rules approach of, say, a David Frum, who ACTUALLY defends very dangerous Cass Sustein because he taught him at Harvard, and who is presumably a most excellent and charming dinner guest and who is allegedly a "expert" on the costs/benefits of regulation and NUDGING the populace, in the politest possible way, toward his pre-determined optimum outcomes.

Me, I'm always puzzled by words like "mainstream", "immoderate" and especially "extreme". Why "extreme". Why not PURE. Pure liberalism, pure libertarianism, un-contaminated by faux concerns for politeness.

As to LOUDMOUTH, after my first visit to New York (where my daughter lives) I breathlessly exclaimed to my wife, "This is the first place I've ever been where I don't feel like a loudmouth."

So while I have enormous respect for Vitruvius's brain power, I find myself utterly mystified by his running thesis.

But NOT TO WORRY Vitruvius. "Net Neutrality", which the FCC is discussing today, will solve this problem, and we can finally excise this rude rough and tumble of the internet's golden age.

So, extremists are delusional? I knew that.
What a shock it must be for the extremists to realise they are really all alone. And shame on those who would throw gas on the fire.

Ya, looks like an interesting article until you figure out that the study design is doo doo. How does one measure "extremist" anyway?

It kills me the stuff that gets published these day. OMG.

I've always felt that most people -don't- share my opinions, but might if they weren't getting lied to 24/7 by all the newspapers. That's why I comment and blog in the first place. That's why I put up my first web site as soon as I figured out this newfangled interweb thing back in the 1990's.

Are given views extreme or just inconvenient for some people? Hard to say eh? Harder to measure.

Nonsense. Momar is more accurate than the author. And extremism is a matter of degree these days. As a relatively moderate Republican global warming skeptic, that fact alone is viewed as extreme by my ultra-liberal step-daughter, for example. Add to that a willingness to vocalize conservative or anti-teleprompter jesus opinions, and I'm a virtual Timothy McVeigh.

Many of my conservative friends are willing to sit or stand in crowded venues and exchange political views, observations and rants with a good deal of decibels. I believe that could be the result of a genetic proclivity that predisposes a person towards busybody-ness. A busybody is nothing more than an active traditionalist. What's wrong with that. We're startled by the unread ignorance that surrounds us and feel compelled to speak loudly to help people know how and what to think.

It has nothing to do with mass-pessimism and everything to do with a strong sense of self. Even those with strong character require positive reinforcement while enduring the continual, hate-filled negativity bombardment perpetrated by the far left.

I have to go home now and let the dog out.

If I may add this ...

Conservative are more inclined to react to the true fanatics who are on the left. Conservatives are busy just trying make things work where the leftists are the ones who are continually and radically whining and deviously working to 'change' things to a state where they can continue to do nothing and get paid for it.

When conservative do start to finally react as they are doing in the town halls, they are vilified immediately as radicals. It may appear that way to the left who is unused to competition in trying reshape our society.

In short it's odd to see conservatives taking social action ... so it attracts negative attention. Like children who continually misbehave then finally the adults are annoyed enough to try some discipline ... the kids hate it when that a happens.

And please let's not count the occasional whacked out Christian group who picket the abortion clinics. They are few and they are odd from anyone's point of view.

Afterthought:
There's fish and there's fowl.
Moderate = neither fish nor fowl.
In which case you starve, but, hopefully, quietly.

Confirmation bias: No view of mine -- NONE -- was arrived at via intellectual exchange. Only praxeologically (hope I'm using the word correctly here), i.e., from my observations about what works and what doesn't work, in the real world. And from my understanding of immutable human nature.

As an example, my hero Ludwig von Mises told be absolutely nothing I didn't already essentially know. Do I read von Mises for confirmation? Do I not waste time with Krugman out of a preference for not having my views challenged?

NO to both questions. I read von Mises not for confirmation but a theoretical elaboration for what I already know. I already know that socialism doesn't work, and can't work. Hayek, Mises and Rothbard (among others) explain why (the calculation problem).

Following Vitruvius's thesis, should I spend time with the Krugmans of this world in order to be innocent of confirmation bias? Should I read a Cass Sunstein book after discovering that he is a socialist who thinks America is too racist for socialism? Should I moderate my view that socialists are simply rock hard stupid?

The Turnip View Point for cultured (educated) turnips, absolutely Bull Shit. Who cares why anyone may choose to follow or lead humanity… The intelligence in found in those that articulate reason, not in whom yells the loudest or chases the fairies farts (economic benefits).

MND ... Nope!

I'd hope that you would stand your principled ground.

BTW - the advent of political corectness places anybody who speaks ... anybody ....in the realm of extreme.

Unless your one of the tongue clucking finger wagging scolds .... you're not part of the club you see.. and therefore have no right to speak out.

For this attitude from those quarters I quite enjoy spitting in their collective eye.

Which is why I choose terms like lefticle.

If Vitruvius believes he suffers from confirmation bias - who am I to disagree?

BTW: How does an intellectual yell or do the things that the "Immoderate Loudmouths" do?

Momar said, "When conservative do start to finally react as they are doing in the town halls, they are vilified immediately as radicals."

Exactly. As an example, after attending the anti-coalition rally last December my "wine & cheese" type liberal family were horrified & viewed me as some sort of crazy extremist because I actually acted out and for once did more than just argue across the dinner table at the family gatherings.

Yes, Me No Dhimmi, you should moderate your "view that socialists are simply rock hard stupid", and the reason you should do so was perhaps historically best explained by Mr. Sun Tzu, who so pointed out that underestimating one's opponents is, generally speaking, a bad idea.

LOL, but Vitruvius, I didn't underestimate my opponents's stupidity!!! I have enormous respect for the damage that stupid people can do mostly 'cos they themselves underestimate their opponents [see: Saddam's thumbing his nose at the US/UN]. Stupid people take undue risks being incurious or uninformed about the likely consequences of their behaviour. And stupid people are very prone to the it's-different-this-time meme.

And in trying to adhere to some kind of no-bias tack, don't we run a much higher risk of being destroyed by our opponents by giving them the benefit of the doubt and stuff?
For these and other reasons, I think it advisable to be indefatigably (sp?) immoderate and LOUDMOUTHED.

Finally, Vitruvius, it occured to me that the purveyors of the "Fairness Doctrine" would be heartened by your thesis.

I am not in favour of trying to adhere to some kind of no-bias tack, Me No Dhimmi, indeed (as I understand it) that is not possible because (cognitive) bias is an unpreventable natural property of a properly functioning human brain. Furthermore, I am opposed to the "Fairness Doctrine", Me No Dhimmi. I have no thesis that supports it.

Oh, I know, Vitruvius, as a libertarian [and most likely with a much stronger intellectual foundation than mine] you're definitely not in favour of the Fairness Doctrine.
But I didn't say you were. I merely suggested that your general thesis about the pathology of the blogosphere (TM) could be very easily misuderstood (and was here, probably) and would be seen as a welcome bit of ammo for the freedom-haters. That's all. Ya know, "we need to regulate the internet to make is less rude and more balanced, yada yada yada".

BTW, I just ordered a new bundle of books from Mises.org including Mises' Bureaucracy which I believe you included in your list of GREAT BOOKS on your site. Oh, and from your many mentions of Mencken, his Notes on Democracy, which I found to be wickedly funny, and a bit guilt-inducing.
Had you considered Mises' Magnum Opus, Human Action for that list? I presume you've read it. I only did, 3-4 years back.

Roger that, Me No Dhimmi.

In this entry I posted some research results that made some very specific claims. Most commenters here did not address them, though some confirmed them through their own behaviour. Imagine if I had posted some research results that reported that "Fat people smell bad". What would you think about the people who responded to that by yelling I do not stink, as so many have done in equivalent here? Some would suggest that one should think they they suffered from suppressed subconscious guilt that they are in fact fatter than they are consciously willing to admit.