|
Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide |  | Author: Cass R. Sunstein
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
Category: Book
List Price: $21.95
Buy New: $12.00
as of 7/31/2010 13:51 CDT details
You Save: $9.95 (45%)
New (36) Used (13) from $10.75
Seller: eXquisite
Rating:  11 reviews
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1
Pages: 208
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.8
Dimensions (in): 8.5 x 5.8 x 0.8
ISBN: 0195378016
Dewey Decimal Number: 303.4840973
EAN: 9780195378016
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
| • | ISBN13: 9780195378016 | | • | Condition: New | | • | Notes: BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed |
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Why do people become extremists? What makes people become so dismissive of opposing views? Why is political and cultural polarization so pervasive in America?
In Going to Extremes, renowned legal scholar and best-selling author Cass R. Sunstein offers startling insights into why and when people gravitate toward extremism. Sunstein marshals a wealth of evidence that shows that when like-minded people gather in groups, they tend to become more extreme in their views than they were before. Thus when liberals group get together to debate climate change, they end up more alarmed about climate change, while conservatives brought together to discuss same-sex unions become more set against same-sex unions. In courtrooms, radio stations, and chatrooms, enclaves of like-minded people are breeding ground for extreme movements. Indeed, Sunstein shows that a good way to create an extremist group, or a cult of any kind, is to separate members from the rest of society, either physically or psychologically. Sunstein's findings help to explain such diverse phenomena as political outrage on the Internet, unanticipated "blockbusters" in the film and music industry, the success of the disability rights movement, ethnic conflict in Iraq and former Yugoslavia, and Islamic terrorism.
Providing a wealth of real-world examples--sometimes entertaining, sometimes alarming--Sunstein offers a fresh explanation of why partisanship has become so bitter and debate so rancorous in America and abroad.
Praise for the hardcover:
"A path-breaking exploration of the perils and possibilities created by polarization among the like-minded."
--Kathleen Hall Jamieson, co-author of unSpun and Echo Chamber
"Poses a powerful challenge to anyone concerned with the future of our democracy. He reveals the dark side to our cherished freedoms of thought, expression and participation. Initiates an urgent dialogue which any thoughtful citizen should be interested in."
--James S. Fishkin, author of When the People Speak
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 11
 Excellent. The OIRA is going to be in excellent hands. Read why. May 23, 2009
Gaetan Lion
13 out of 18 found this review helpful
Sunstein will soon run the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). This Agency conducts cost benefit analysis of regulations. So, it is interesting to know Sunstein mindset. Sunstein is also the coauthor of the excellent Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness where he fleshes out his political philosophy of Liberal Paternalism. After reading those two books, you get a feeling that the OIRA will be in extremely capable hands. Sunstein has a powerful and inquisitive intellect. He is also an excellent writer as his books are very easy to read despite covering rather dry topics.
Homogeneous groups polarize as they cause like-minded people to strengthen their positions by eliminating the balancing safeguard from diverging opinions. Sunstein demonstrates that no category individuals is exempt from this behavior. Even Federal judges were victim of it as their verdict were politically more polarized when they belonged to an homogeneous political panel (all three Judges from same political party) vs when they were not.
Regarding risk taking endeavors, if individuals are moderate risk avoiders after deliberating they will become more so. If they are moderate risk takers, the group will render them more extreme risk takers.
Group polarization occurs because individuals only exchange information that reinforces their initial views and exclude info that does not. Group polarization is stealthy. You join a group of like-minded people. You approve of what they say. Before you know it they turned you into an extremist.
The Bush Administration was an insular polarizing group. Independent views were not solicited. A better model is Abraham Lincoln "Team of Rivals" that Obama is emulating. Here independent minded experts are nominated to create an internal debate with a broad range of opinions. Similarly, well functioning corporate boards contain clashing viewpoints and challenging questions. These points are a tribute to the power of checks and balances including the value of creating Teams of Rivals even in domains in which leaders usually seek team players.
Local communities are subject to polarization as people cluster into areas of like-minded people and become adamant about our political views as depicted by Bill Bishop in The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart. Similarly, corporations are polarizing groups where employees are exaggerating the positive outlook of their employers and are dismissive of competitors.
Group polarization can go terribly wrong. Sunstein explains the Rwanda genocide, the Holocaust, terrorism, Abu Ghraib abuses through group polarization leading to violent extremism. He refers to the social experiments of Milgram, where normal people gave others really high electric shocks just to answer questions. He also refers to Zimbardo Stanford Prison experiment where students were divided in two groups: guards and prisoners. The guards became so cruel, the experiment was aborted to preserve the welfare of the "prisoners." The underlying finding is that given circumstances moral people can do horrible things. This issue has triggered a debate between the "dispositionists" and the "situationists." The dispositionists believe cruelty is a matter of individual disposition. The situationists believe it is a matter of situation. This is a Nature vs Nurture argument. Milgram and Zimbardo experiments are red flags that normal people can become cruel. However, people did observe "good" guards that were not cruel in the Stanford Prison Experiment and Abu Ghraib. But, where these few saints exceptions that confirm the rule? To study this further, read Zimbardo's The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil.
Sunstein also connects the dots between group polarization and Irving Janis Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. The two concepts overlap. But, he states that group polarization better explains extremism (moving one's opinion towards an extreme) than groupthink. But, in many group decisions the two concepts are identical.
Sunstein indicates information cascades cause investment bubbles. Robert Shiller calls them social contagion; whereby we start believing something because everybody else does. In the late 90s, we thought the sky was the limit for Internet stocks. See Shiller Irrational Exuberance. Just three years later we jumped into the next information cascade: home prices always go up. See Shiller The Subprime Solution: How Today's Global Financial Crisis Happened, and What to Do about It.
Information cascades also entail peer pressure. He calls those reputational cascades. You are afraid to hold a diverging opinion from the consensus so as to not become socially ostracized. He uses the global warming view that it will produce catastrophic harm in the very near term as an example. Such a reputational cascade was typefied by Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. Bjorn Lomborg wrote a balanced rebuttal Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming (Vintage). But, the rhetorical debate was over before it began. Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' became a worldwide reputational cascade recompensing Gore with a Nobel Price and an Oscar Award. Meanwhile, Bjorn Lomborg remained in obscurity outside of Denmark.
Sunstein covers terrorism in depth. He refers to the excellent work of Krueger in What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism (New Edition) indicating that terrorists are not who we think. They are well educated often middle class and not mentally ill. But, they often live in societies that lack civil rights and liberties. And, terrorism becomes a last resort form of political protest for the ones who are inclined to violence (the disposisionist argument resurfaces). Group polarization within terrorist groups plays a huge role. Per Sunstein terrorists are not born, they are normal individuals who become polarized.
To prevent group polarization, Sunstein promotes free flow of information so that a group checks its position against external references, conducting cost-benefit analysis. Group diversity is also key so diverging opinions are expressed.
Sunstein explains the The Wisdom of Crowds with the Condercet Jury theorem. Groups generate better overall decisions than individuals so long as the Majority rule is used and each person is more likely than not to be correct. If either of those conditions are not met than group decisions are worst than individuals.
Dictatorships are less successful than democracies in war because democracies have better access to information. Careful studies show that democracies do well in fighting wars in part because they do not start wars if they are not likely to win them.
The merits and dangers of consensus June 8, 2009
laurens van den muyzenberg (Vallauris France)
5 out of 7 found this review helpful
The book starts with something we all know, that it is more pleasant to talk with people that agree with you than with those that disagree with you. What we do not realize is that by acting this way we become "polarized". As all agree with what we think we start to believe that what we think is true. The author Cass Sunstein does an excellent job to make you aware of this happening and the consequences.
An extreme example is terrorists that form groups with extreme polarization. Most of these terrorists have experienced moral outrage, personal experience of discrimination, economic exclusion, even though many are well educated and come from middle-class families.
Polarization can be bad but also good like overthrowing the Lenin Communist system in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, or abolishing slavery in the United States.
The author presents his view as to what can be done to avoid bad polarization and tolerate good polarization. He believes the only answer is free speech and tolerance; acceptance and respect for diverse views, for diversity. He points out that dictatorships are breeding grounds for terrorism. Polarized groups objecting to dictatorships do not trust what the dictatorships claim to be the truth. Discrimination and outrage do the rest.
It is also relevant for business. Leaders that act like dictators will before or after their death ruin the company. A board of directors must contain members with different perspectives that forcefully argue with each other and management. Also at the level of management vigorous arguments about different perspectives are essential. What the author omits is the importance that after vigorous argument in boards and management a decision taken must be supported 100% by all the members of the board and of top management.
The book also enriches your vocabulary and concepts with words like: conspiracy entrepreneur, interactive echo-chamber, first and second order diversity, enclave deliberation, public forum doctrine, informational cascade and more.
Finally the book gets off to a slow start but towards the end it becomes exciting to read.
The Leader's Way: Business, Buddhism and Happiness in an Interconnected World
must read August 23, 2009
J. Daly
3 out of 5 found this review helpful
I turn on my television and computer each day now to get my news. I go to web pages and stations that reflect, I suspect, my beliefs. If I'm conservative, it's Fox. MSNBC for liberals. Is that a problem? We get the news that fits our beliefs. According to this book, its a big problem. It may make our decisions as a people far more divisive. Why? This books answers that question. Turns out that when people of a particular political bent sit down together and talk, they get more polarized. Liberals get more liberals, conservatives more conservative. They stop looking and listening to opinions that don't match their own. And, they see the other side in much more stereoptypic ways. All of this spells trouble for those of us who believe in rationale, thoughtful, and diverse discussions of issues. If you don't believe this is a problem, look at how the current health care debate is being hyjacked by people who are literally making things up.
This book does a masterful job of integrating massive bodies of social scientific literature that create a compelling argument that polarization is afoot and is being aided and abetted by people's natural tendencies to hang with people like themselves and avoid dissonant information.
Only two hesitations.
First, the complaints are much stronger than the solutions offered. I had hoped that the author of Nudge would have had some more creative solutions to this issue he raises.
Second, there remains the issue of whether this is really such a problem. I've spent lot of time in Europe where there have been, for many years, politically polarized news outlets. Yet London is still a politically very diverse debating society on issues. You might read The Times, another person might read the Independent, your colleague the Guardian, and the guy next door the Sun but all of you, nonetheless, seem to grasp the nuances of the issues being discusses. Same in France and Italy. So, is this much ado about nothing. Read the book and come up with your decision!
Fools seldom differ? September 25, 2009
Dr. Nicholas P. G. Davies (Halifax, UK)
3 out of 5 found this review helpful
This is an excellent short, punchy and important book. It contains some very useful ideas, both for personal use, and which will help us in business and political settings.
Its basic point is two fold. Firstly that birds of a feather flock together. Secondly, as they do this they tend to narrow their field of options, and magnify each other's prejudices and misconceptions.
This phenomenon which affects all of us up to a point, becomes dangerous quickly, particularly when we do not accept the discipline of wide reading or other exposure to many different people and ideas. One of the privileges of working as a doctor is that by default I meet people from most walks of life, and learn a lot about them, and about how to adapt my style to meet the needs of different patients. The medicine is the same- but my presentation of it alters according to who I am treating. My medical experience has led to me becoming more moderate over time, and to recognition that there are often many options to approach any one particular problem.
The opposite of meeting, learning and debating with many others is the in group, the phenomenon of looking for reinforcement of previous prejudices, rather than for new knowledge, or counter examples. The extreme of this in group thinking, and ignoring, or misinterpreting the rest of the world is seen in terrorism, and other single issue fanaticisms.
Sunstein has done us a great favour by summarising the cognitive work needed to be done to become a dogmatic fanatic or terrorist, and by showing us what we need to do to avoid this.
Some degree of associating with birds of a feather is useful (e.g. a learned society, a local football club) in terms of sharing experience and developing focused expertise. But we lose so much if we go too far down this specialisation process and develop a blind spot for the rest of the world.
Great minds think alike? Fools seldom differ? This book navigates the balance between these two opposites beautifully.
A moderate view of Going to Extremes August 27, 2009
Charles Bradley (Acton , MA USA)
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
Cass Sunstein's small book might help us understand many
aspects of group behavior. He claims, with substantial
evidence, that discussion within relatively homogenous
groups usually tends to move most members toward more extreme
positions.
There is a lot of evidence, but short of proof, that the
best choice is usually somewhere between the viewpoints
of opponents. Thus, after discussion, decisions in some groups
will be made worse. The author offers ways to avoid this.
The suggested methods depend on the audience wanting the
author's goal. This reviewer believes the book can also be
used as a training manual for extremists, including those
that would rather win than be right.
Political differences provide many examples in the book.
Despite Sunstein's very liberal and very public opinions,
he does a remarkably balanced presentation.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 11
|
|
|
|
| |
