OK, now I see what the problem was. This is not a terribly good job of extracting a good summarizing quote from a 21-page article. I think it was selected more because of that cool phrase, "iterated polarization games," than for its value in conveying the heart of the argument.
I think that if I describe the two main contending explanations for group polarization it would make things clearer, especially with respect to what an "extremist tendency" is supposed to be.
The first explanation is based on the fact that usually people like to be near the center of whatever group they're in. If my "natural" political position scores 40 liberalism points, and the center of my society is at 50, I am likely to be more comfortable at 41 or 42. If however I restrict my environment to a group whose center is at 30, I'm likely to go to 39 or 38, which is more extreme relative to the society at large (still hanging out at 50). So it doesn't necessarily require that every member of my restricted circle be at less than 50, just that the center is less than 50.
The iterated part comes in because by me moving from 42 to 38, I have helped to move the center of my group to 29.8, and the next round of shifts will be even more biased lower.
The second explanation, which I personally find somewhat more intuitively appealing, is based on the fact that there are usually several different arguments in favor of any given position, and that any single person will only have thought of a few of them themselves. If I believe that SUVs are evil for some safety reason, in regular society I will also be exposed to various opinions both for and against SUVs, but in a restricted environment composed of mostly SUV-haters, I will encounter a bunch of unfamiliar arguments bolstering my existing position, as I talk to someone who hates SUVs because they increase our reliance on foreign oil supplies and then someone who hates them for contributing more greenhouse gases and then someone who hates them because they take up more parking space, I'm likely to incorporate these confirming arguments into my own beliefs, thus making my position on SUVs more extreme. Note that in this case we could start with a group of people every single one of which starts at 40 SUV points, but that as we absorb each others additional arguments, we all move down together.
So what's an "extremist tendency"? In the first explanation, it's just being somewhat away from the norm, while in the second explanation, it's having reached a tentative belief based on just one or two reasons.
no subject
I think that if I describe the two main contending explanations for group polarization it would make things clearer, especially with respect to what an "extremist tendency" is supposed to be.
The first explanation is based on the fact that usually people like to be near the center of whatever group they're in. If my "natural" political position scores 40 liberalism points, and the center of my society is at 50, I am likely to be more comfortable at 41 or 42. If however I restrict my environment to a group whose center is at 30, I'm likely to go to 39 or 38, which is more extreme relative to the society at large (still hanging out at 50). So it doesn't necessarily require that every member of my restricted circle be at less than 50, just that the center is less than 50.
The iterated part comes in because by me moving from 42 to 38, I have helped to move the center of my group to 29.8, and the next round of shifts will be even more biased lower.
The second explanation, which I personally find somewhat more intuitively appealing, is based on the fact that there are usually several different arguments in favor of any given position, and that any single person will only have thought of a few of them themselves. If I believe that SUVs are evil for some safety reason, in regular society I will also be exposed to various opinions both for and against SUVs, but in a restricted environment composed of mostly SUV-haters, I will encounter a bunch of unfamiliar arguments bolstering my existing position, as I talk to someone who hates SUVs because they increase our reliance on foreign oil supplies and then someone who hates them for contributing more greenhouse gases and then someone who hates them because they take up more parking space, I'm likely to incorporate these confirming arguments into my own beliefs, thus making my position on SUVs more extreme. Note that in this case we could start with a group of people every single one of which starts at 40 SUV points, but that as we absorb each others additional arguments, we all move down together.
So what's an "extremist tendency"? In the first explanation, it's just being somewhat away from the norm, while in the second explanation, it's having reached a tentative belief based on just one or two reasons.