Jump to navigation
Groupthink, or You Can't Say That
Mike Ahlf
This is just an observation. I may be entirely wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not. It's an observation of political leanings, too, so feel free to pick it apart.
I'm following up on RAW's earlier post below, somewhat, in that it sparked some things I read a while back. If you look over the blogosphere, in respect to the recent Texas constitutional amendment outlawing Gay Marriage, there are pretty much two reactions - "eh" and "OMG WTF those Texans are so intolerant." This seems to be especially true of certain blogs I read that are authored by Texans who were vehemently opposed to the amendment before it passed.
Strangely disheartening, despite the fact that the amendment passed by a more-than-clear majority, is two common components: comment posts explaining rationally why someone would vote for the amendment, and comment posts by those who are in agreement but don't agree about calling people names.
Thus, the "echo chamber." It has been posited that part of the reason for the political split in the country has to do with people's associations: as politics gets more charged up, people start using political views as an excuse to disassociate with people (because their political discussions don't remain friendly). Pretty soon, they get to the point where many sit today - a soundproofed echo chamber where their own viewpoint is reflected back at them by their friends, and opposing viewpoints are bounced out by a wall of "I can't believe you just said that, you're so uneducated/redneck/bigoted/intolerant/insert vitriol here."
Obviously, the left has no monopoly on this. Listen to a radio talk show like Limburger or inHannity and you get much the same format - a host going on and on, who gladly accepts callers who agree, and whose concept of "reasoning" with someone who disagrees more or less consists of cutting them off in the middle of any statement they make.
However, the echo chamber of the left, at least to me, seems more institutionalized and uncomfortable. Part of this is the fact that the Democratic Party is "unified" whereas many so-called Conservatives are not Republicans. Democrats follow the wisdom of Lyndon Johnson, who admonished his party to keep their critics inside the tent peeing out, rather than outside the tent peeing in. The result is that the Democratic Party platform, and its top officials, go through an amazing vetting process. Even lesser-known Democrats know that to utter certain heresies is to bring the wrath of these groups.
For instance:
- Suggesting that Roe v. Wade is anything but a blanket "any abortion, any time, at moment's notice" decision is highly frowned upon.
- Suggesting that there are cultural problems within the black community (gangsta rappers, disdain for education and proper speaking via the "acting white" stereotype) that cause many of the problems for them today, even by certain black leaders, is heresy.
- Suggesting that environmental groups may be partly to blame for our energy problems, because they have constantly opposed the creation of new power plants and refineries anytime one was to be built, is heresy.
- Suggesting that our border with Mexico needs controlling? Heresy.
- Suggesting that maybe, just perhaps, the same forces of evolution that have left females to be (on average) shorter, and less muscled, with wider hips, than males also have shaped a few differences in brain structure? Utter heresy.
- Suggesting that they "gay rights" movement isn't exactly the same, and just as urgent, as the Civil Rights movement under MLK was? Heresy.
Now, these are just a few, and I won't say that you never hear these - but I can say with certainty that when you do, some interest group or other within the Democratic Party is going to throw a screaming hissy fit and demand an apology. Even in mixed company, discussions along any "heretical" topic from the side of the left tend to begin with comments incorporating a dismissive buzzword, that attacks the opposing viewpoint on emotional rather than logical grounds.
Case in point: the crew I was hanging out with earlier this week. Normally, we don't discuss politics, because we've got 1 hyperlibertarian, 1 true moderate, 1 moderate-to-conservative (me), and at least two hyperliberals. But this one was "important."
The entire discussion, before it degenerated and got cut off in favor of not becoming crazy and hurting feelings, was:
1: "Hey, did you hear the Prop 2 amendment passed by over 70%?"
2: "Yeah, I can't believe this entire state is so *bleep*ing intolerant."
That was it. A few more words were spoken, but the underlying assumption - that all of the room would be in agreement - was flat wrong. And yet it didn't get challenged. Why? Because there would be no point. You've already been called "intolerant", and you know by that word that the person who uttered it will not be convinced to any other point of view. You know that if you argue it, you're likely going to be called a few more of those names. The alternative, which I followed, was to bite my tongue and just sit it out.
Echo Chamber, in a nutshell.
On a statewide basis, one has to wonder how prevalent this is. There were plenty of pro-gay rights activists out trying to drum up support. The cries of "intolerance" were heard far and wide. Talk radio hosts might have been the other side, but plenty of callers were calling those shows and voicing their opinion that the amendment needed to fail.
Yet it passed, by 70+ percentage points voting for it. Where were all these voters? Apparently they were the silent majority. Calling them intolerant, or bigots, or anything else, just gave them that much more reason to pull the lever for the amendment in the privacy and anonymity of the voting booth.
The echo chamber is a more generalized case of RAW's earlier observation about the vitriol in the issue and the fact that rather than wondering why so few people agreed with them, the activists are still busy attacking everyone who didn't vote their way, but it's still valid.
The bigger problem for the left is that they're presenting themselves as un-convincable. To convert someone - even a moderate - to your side, you have to at least give the appearance that you're willing to listen to their concerns or ideas if they think you're not quite right.
The left, even being out of power, still aren't doing that. And that's where they're losing the moderates, many of whom (like myself) probably agree with them on 45-55% of the issues.
Observations
I agree with the idea that echo chamberism is more a liberal than conservative trait (qualification: among educated individuals), but disagree that it's because the liberals are more or less united than conservatives. I would actually say that, on the whole, conservatives are more united.
I believe that, generally speaking, educated liberals are more susceptible to thinking inside a bubble than conservatives for a couple of reasons, the primary of which being that it's difficult for an educated conservative to not be exposed to the liberal point-of-view on a regular basis. First, if they've been to college they've more than likely been exposed to it there. Second, and this is more controversial and more limited to social issues, the media has a tendency to portray socially liberal positions as being more universally accepted than they are. For years the narrative on Republican officeholders has been that the Religious Right are their biggest liability with the public when election after election has demonstrated that social issues are the GOP's strength, not its weakness.
Polls somewhat bear this theory of mine out with Democrat voters reporting to be "moderate" in polls in much higher numbers than Republican voters.
RAW,
on the media infiltration and academia, that's almost a certainty. Given an entrenched liberal mindset in the leaders of various colleges, your best bet for attaining tenure is to be liberal yourself, or at least keep your yap shut. In the media, not only is there an entrenched liberal holding on the part of editors/writers, but there's also the historical "media are the vanguard to protect the people" bit wherein investigative reporters are to "right wrongs" and "expose" things and all that nonsense, which is much more suited to a liberal mindset.
As far as misreporting and the polling numbers, part of that is (again) the liberal echo chamber at work. Liberals predominantly know only other liberals, and identify "the other guys" as outside the mainstream, and equate their own conception of mainstream as "moderate" even if it's near-communism on the left-right charts.
Most of the polling differential is echo-chamberism... that was my point in bringing it up.
Mike,
One of the relatively few sources of major disagreement between Alex and myself is the comfort he has with making generalizations about politics.
I've gone on record as saying that, despite Alex's general caution and good judgment, such generalizations about what "liberals" do or what some monolith known as "the Left" thinks or feels, are almost useless (because, to use a philosophical term, I think they generally "refer" very poorly), and can be highly obfuscatory, despite the agent's best intentions.
I have no idea what "liberals" or "the Left" does, or whether broad generalizations apply more to them than to other poorly defined sociopolitical groups.
All JMO, and I mean no offense, of course. (And obviously, since I reject an underlying premise of the post -- that meaningful observations can be made on the basis of broad generalizations about political predilections in the absence of accepted social science techniques -- I'm not really taking specific issue with anything you write here).
I don't know that I would politically charge that obervation. I think regardless of political points of view, I think people isolate themselves with everything. Surround yourself with people who agree with you, or that you identify with.
I was talking with a man at work one day about segregation... North v. South. We is from Puerto Rico and moved to NYC. He moved down to Texas. He was completely surprised to see how integrated it was compared to NYC. Not that NYC tried to segregate, but rather when people found a place to live, they stuck to areas where they are comfortable.
Just the other day I saw another good example of this. I was flipping stations and saw Trading Spouses: Meet Your New Mommy. They sent a God fearing Christian woman to like California to be with a New Age family. "Witch-craft and dark-sided things," is what she claimed to be surrounded by. But the most interesting part of the show was her trip home. Once she stepped off the plane she couldn't stop talking about how good it was to be home in "God's Country" away from the "Witch-craft" and "dark-sided" things. Where did she step off the plane? New Orleans. I'm not saying New Orleans is/was some sort of pagan retreat, but it certain has it's share of voodoo, witch-craft and psychics. It just amazed me to hear her talk about how great New Orleans was and how it was some sort of Christian haven. I can only imagine that her group of family and friends is quite limited.
I think people have forgotten how to have discussions of dissenting opinion, regardless of the topic. People certainly don't feel comfortable, nor do they like to find out they are wrong. So much so that they shield themselves from ever finding out.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
