Iterated polarization games

[kirisutogomen]

I didn't do a very good job with this post yesterday. I've been trying to work on a problem that really requires a program written in a real grown-up language, but I'm doing it in a spreadsheet instead, which is several orders of magnitude less efficient, it's really crushing my computer, and I end up doing violently abbreviated versions of everything else. I really ought to learn how to code.

Anyway, the original article is here. (Cass R Sunstein (2002) "The Law of Group Polarization" Journal of Political Philosophy 10(2), 175–195)

Groups consisting of individuals with extremist tendencies are more likely to shift, and likely to shift more (a point that bears on the wellsprings of violence and terrorism); the same is true for groups with some kind of salient shared identity (like Republicans, Democrats, and lawyers, but unlike jurors and experimental subjects). When like-minded people are participating in "iterated polarization games" — when they meet regularly, without sustained exposure to competing views — extreme movements are all the more likely.

The problem with the parentheses was that the PDF I copied it from doesn't allow copy and paste, so I had to type it in myself. Sorry.

(Also see Hotelling Beach)

Comments

[psychohist.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's "groups of like minded people" so much as "groups of people who think they belong together for an agreed upon reason". That's where the "salient shared identity" comes in.

Also, the statement doesn't say the shifts are necessarily to more extreme stances; it just says the shifts are larger. The shifts could be to a more extreme position, or they could be to a more moderate position. An example of the latter is the IRA and Sinn Fein shifting fairly rapidly from "violent low level insurgency" to "negotiated resolution", for example.

What is it that you're struggling with?

[kirisutogomen.livejournal.com]

Well, what I was struggling with was the idea that either "shift" or "movement" was at all unclear, and I was trying to figure out why that might be.

The original quote does in fact refer to "groups consisting of individuals with extremist tendencies" and "like-minded people" who "meet regularly, without sustained exposure to competing views" as distinct categories under discussion, in addition to those with "salient shared identity".

While it's true that the two sentences I quoted don't explicitly say that the shifts are toward more extreme positions, the article is in fact talking about such.

And I would argue that the phenomenon of group polarization is a large part of the explanation for why the IRA clung for decades to an obviously failed strategy, and why it took so long for them to admit that their best chance for getting some of what they wanted was to talk to the people who had the power to give it to them.

[ricedog.livejournal.com]

their best chance for getting some of what they wanted

A lot of people are fairly good at preferring a low chance of getting all of what they want in favor of a larger chance of getting some of what they want. ObLottery.