Contents:
People tend to view websites, read newspapers and blogs, listen to radio shows, and watch television programs that support their pre-existing views. Social psychological research shows that people are biased in how they assimilate information. Often, when encountering information challenging pre-existing beliefs, people respond by labeling the uncongenial points as silly or stupid, and derogate the people espousing those points. Sunstein also notes that political extremists are typically far from irrational. Rather, they tend to have a very narrow set of knowledge on an issue, and what they know supports their extremism.
In fact, extremism is sometimes defensible and right e. Movements Groups that live in isolated communities are more prone to polarization, as they are more likely to have shared concerns, shared grievances, and a shared identity. However, if a group is diffused within the general population, they have less opportunity for discussion with like-minded others and, thus, lack a polarized group consciousness. Successful reform movements often occur because of these processes of polarization, as being in like-minded groups makes it easier to organize and mobilize.
Extremists do not usually suffer from a mental illness. Nor are they typically irrational.
Why do people become extremists? What makes people become so dismissive of opposing views? Why is political and cultural polarization so pervasive in. Going to Extremes. How Like Minds Unite and Divide. Cass R. Sunstein. Sunstein is a friend and advisor to Barack Obama, and both are dedicated to.
In these cases, people will often rely on what other people think—especially people they view as reliable sources of information. Furthermore, once people hold a certain belief, they are motivated to confirm that belief by accepting confirmatory data while rejecting any disconfirming data possibly, by saying that it was gathered through bad science, or was being espoused by someone with a political bias. In other words, extremists tend to have an inflated perception that their actions will lead to the desired results. If we think of extremists as irrational, it becomes more difficult to understand and prevent their actions.
He viewed tradition as a check on extreme movements, as respecting tradition may encourage people to be wary of radical ideas that challenge the status quo. Thus, people who have a high respect for tradition may be the least likely to polarize.
Many political philosophers have taken issue with this traditionalist model arguing that tradition is not necessarily good, or inherently better than modern reforms. The process of deliberating on these facts with others may lead the groups to become more polarized than they were initially. Specifically, the founders expected the House of Representatives to be a more mercurial branch of government that would craft policy guided most by the popular passions and group polarization.
The Senate, however, was to ensure that ill-considered legislation did not become law. Importantly, group deliberation does NOT necessarily lead to truth. The Jury Theorem suggests that large groups of people can make better decisions than smaller groups, IF the people deliberating in the groups are more likely to be right than wrong. Thus, group deliberation is more likely to work well if the deliberators are cognitively diverse i.
It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to… public affairs. I hold… that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The problem is not simply polarization, rather it is when people are isolated and have minimal contact with others who have alternative viewpoints. This isolation and the feeling of marginality are the factors that make polarization particularly dangerous. To prevent this type of polarization, Sunstein argues for the creation of spaces where people can discuss their views that is not insulated from those outside of the group perhaps groups such as The Village Square are doing this.
In short, a powerful reinforcing feedback loop. A surprisingly large number of the entry points have more to do with social instincts than anything else.
Individuals defer to other individuals who are of higher status; they defer to family and friends and social groups. Most people want to be liked, and most people have an intuitive sense that a good way to be liked is to agree — or sometimes to even do those whose respect they wish to gain one better. Groups are particular prone to follow confident people — even if those confident people are wrong. Once people start in on a particular belief path, they tend to be on the lookout for information that confirms what they already think: At the very least, it is helpful to have a certain amount of self-awareness.
Good and easy to read. Thankfully it's not very long either. This book is very relevant to today and has a lot to offer as to what causes division, animosity, and aggression. There is more to be learned on this issue, but this is a good book to start for anyone interested in studying why and how we can go to extremes. Aug 20, John rated it liked it. This is a book about people with views to the far right or far left. It cites some interesting studies on human behavior. For example, one study concludes that when people of one extreme or the other get together, they are even more extreme after they meet than they were before.
The extremism feeds on itself and makes itself stronger. So when people on the right interact only with other people on the right, they go farther to the right; when people on the left interact only with other people on This is a book about people with views to the far right or far left. So when people on the right interact only with other people on the right, they go farther to the right; when people on the left interact only with other people on the left, they go farther to the left.
Also, when people with a very strong interest in a topic are faced with contrary evidence, instead of moderating their views they become even stronger in their views to withstand it. Hardly earth-shattering, given the current polarized political climate, but the studies are interesting. Sunstein's "solution" to this is a Public Forum Doctrine that is somewhat reminiscent of the Fairness Doctrine.
Cass Sunstein thinks that the state should "nudge" people towards correct behavior. Sunstein co-wrote a book called "Nudge" about that tactic; he also wrote a book about FDR that praised him most effusively for the New Deal.
Those who implement "nudging" are called "choice architects". Sunstein labels himself a proponent of "libertarian paternalism", an oxymoronic term that means the state should not regulate behavior, but should use persuasion obvious or hidden to direct behavior--AKA "soft paternalism" or "asymmetrical paternalism". This reminded me of those books popular in the 70s about subliminal advertising. Sunstein received a law degree from Harvard, taught in Chicago, has been a friend and advisor to Obama for years, and was announced as Obama's "regulation czar".
Or, I guess, the "National Choice Architect". But he has not yet been confirmed, mostly because of statements such as this: You can see why conservatives may disagree with Sunstein's ideas.
However, progressives aren't always thrilled with Sunstein either, because he has some libertarian, anti-regulatory ideas, salted with a little free-trade economics. But this should make Sunstein more appealing to open-minded moderates and conservatives, and the book is worth reading -- unless you belong to one of the extremes and won't be influenced by competing ideas. Why does it happen that when a bunch of like-minded people discuss something, they almost invariably end up, both personally and collectively, holding an opinion that is much more radical than what they started with?
And what should we do with this knowledge? I was really torn between 3 and 4 stars for this book. What tilted the final verdict towards a lower score was perhaps due to the book's brevity, which in itself may not be a bad thing fo "Going to Extremes" is a slim volume on a huge topic. What tilted the final verdict towards a lower score was perhaps due to the book's brevity, which in itself may not be a bad thing for many readers.
Sunstein raises a few interesting questions and pursues them in an intelligent fashion - but finally stops short of going into the truly thorny implications. Again, this may be fine with most of his readers. However, I suspect that there will be many people who are left unconvinced by Sunstein's own take which, to be honest, he doesn't press upon too hard and would have appreciated a somewhat broader discussion.
Nov 14, Ashoke Chakrabarti rated it really liked it. Knowing that, it is our collective responsibility to guide one other toward the light, especially those who know the path. Aug 23, Phoenix rated it really liked it Shelves: The main examples and core ideas are the same, there's a bit extra on bias and an index and bibliography at the back that the other lacks. Some of the extra material include a light comparison of the effectiveness of Presidential cabinet contrasting Lincoln's "Team of Rivals" to Bush's team of like minded people.
It adds experiments and observations of the different behaviour of like minded and mixed groups of people in the polarization of their decisions, especially judges and jurors mixing Democrats with Republicans as well as community group, as well as an analysis of consciousness raising, conspiracy and terrorist groups.
Readers will also pick up some extra terminology, such as "crippled epistemology" - basically flawed belief systems, "homophily" - the idea that similarity breeds connection, Condorcet's "Jury Theorem", "sensibles" vs "haters" and "exit", the phenomenon where more moderate and possibly more motivated members of a group may choose to leave making the remaining group composition both more extreme and more compliant.
However considering society as a whole, Sunstein does not see polarization as bad as different segments of society can make different social decisions that may either be more locally appropriate, or provide alternate communities to people who don't fit in one or another social group. He does consider that Presidential boards which require a 3: He also mentions another interesting observation that conflicting information given to a polarized group tends not to lead to changing anyone's mind but further entrenchment.
If you are looking for a lighter read, pick up On Rumors instead. This version is still at the level of popular sociology, there are reasonable discussions of the Milgram and Zimbado Stanford experiments, and you'll pick up more surrounding argument in support of Sunstein's views. Also, If you are a teacher of middle or high school students who's assigned Rumors as reading or tackling the book at college level, this version will give you more depth and an indication for further reading. Dec 10, Kathleen O'Neal rated it it was amazing. For a long time, I've been aware of Cass Sunstein but on some level I was always hesitant to engage too much with his work.
I was under the impression that he was one of those moderate for the sake of moderation types whose work I often find to be overly simplistic, recycling conventional wisdom as novel and profound insights. However, over the past year, I have become more and more alarmed as I have watched both the nation as a whole and many people I know personally appear to become more extr For a long time, I've been aware of Cass Sunstein but on some level I was always hesitant to engage too much with his work.
However, over the past year, I have become more and more alarmed as I have watched both the nation as a whole and many people I know personally appear to become more extreme on a wide range of topics while simultaneously also becoming more unmoored from reality in their assessments of the facts.
I decided that, even if Sunstein is the sort of mushy moderate that often annoys me, his work on extremism was worth engaging with in more depth. After reading his brief and breezy book "Going To Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide," I am happy to report that Sunstein's lack of an obvious partisan bias was downright refreshing and that he was also perfectly capable of recognizing some of the positive aspects of some types of extremism under the right circumstances.
Sunstein's main concerns are with the harms that can occur when groups of like-minded individuals insulate themselves both from objective information and from those with different points of view. During a period in time in which many people are rightly concerned about our political culture and discourse becoming increasingly untethered from any sort of connection with facts, about citizens' increasing self-segregation in polarized ideological silos both online and offline, and about demands by students on college campuses as well as others to be protected from speech that they find uncomfortable, Sunstein's analysis is perhaps even more prescient now than when the book first came out.
Jul 26, bitmaid rated it did not like it. The author thinks one is more likely to moderate oneself if one lacks information on the subject. If anything the development in the Middle East proves it's stupid to choose camps, and not even the old age of the book excuses the mistake because the situation has been going on too long. Also people can form strong opinions without knowing much ab "The most important reason for group polarization, and a key to extremism in all its forms, involves the exchange of new information.
Also people can form strong opinions without knowing much about anything let alone indoctrination. The more I look at it, the more it looks like the book is about group psychology, on a more superficial level than extremism that is. In that case Le Bon is a hundred years ahead of him. This book is just far fetched and lacking substance. It didn't help that there is yet another attempt to redesign democracy. Mar 17, Bob Duke rated it it was amazing. In the age of the internet we are able to choose our information bubbles and ideological bubbles which leads to us becoming more extreme in our views.
Traditional media serendipitously provides us with views and information that we would not otherwise seek out.
The internet allows us to filter out such sources and engage in dialogues with like minded people who reinforce our views. Jan 06, James rated it really liked it. Very good book about how extremist view points and politics are formed by individuals and groups.