Vera Verba

I think I have to be considered a wild advocate of the Internet. After all, I’m probably best known for writing a novel that more or less credits the Internet with facilitating the next step in the evolution of mankind. But, the Internet has caused some problems too, and this post adresses one such problem that is both very large and little-understood.

Twenty years ago I wrote a little series of essays for myself entitled Closed-Circuit Thinking, mostly as a way of clarifying my own thoughts. In it, I addressed the problems that arise in groups of people that listen to no voices but their own. I would now call these closed systems. As it turns out, I wasn’t the only person thinking along these lines. There is now a considerable body of work of the subject, generally classified as Group Polarization.

Group polarization works this way: When a group of people with the same opinion remains in a single room, that opinion moves inevitably to the extreme. Many tests have been done - with widely-varied groups - it happens every time.

The reason for this is what psychologists call Individuation: the need to be seen as a distinct individual, not merely as another drone in the hive.

The more outgoing people in any group will always struggle to make their voices heard above the din. To be regarded, one must have something different to say. And, since everyone in the room already holds the same opinion, the logical move is to take the opinion a bit farther than it has already gone. (Taking it away from the extreme would make you appear impure, weak, compromising, or otherwise unfaithful to the group.)

The end effect of this is that people in such self-contained groups get more and more polarized, and ever-harsher toward any groups that they see as their opponents.

While writing this in early 2008, it is generally agreed that opinions in the United States – especially political opinions – have become more polarized than usual in recent years. For example, to his opposing party, the President of the United States is seen not as wrong, or even bumbling, but as a Satan figure – evil, conniving, purposely lying for evil purposes.

But if polarization is increasing just now, there must be a recent cause. And, as I mentioned above, the great enabler of this negative trend is the Internet.

Prior to the Internet, assembling a large group of people that shared a single opinion was not a particularly easy task. Even in homogenous societies, there were always the Liberal/Conservative, Torry/Labor, and Catholic/Protestant sorts of divisions. Closed opinion loops did form, but usually as groups of people who energetically separated themselves from the rest of their societies. (And since separation required a very significant amount of motivation, these groups tended to be small.) Now, with the exponential increase in communication possibilities brought to us by the Internet, surrounding one’s self with people of the same opinion is easy.

Let me repeat: The Internet makes it possible to surround yourself with people of a single opinion

If you are pro-Bush, you can surround yourself with like-minded people, harmonious opinions, patriotic songs and appropriate tee-shirts at all times. And if you are anti-Bush, you can find enough material to give you 24/7 support that Bush is, indeed, everything Hugo Chavez says about him, and more.

The problem is that people are doing this. Websites, blogs, discussion lists, and chat rooms all proliferate; and this in addition to ever-more television and radio stations catering to smaller segments of the populace. It is now possible to enclose yourself in your chosen mythologies.

So, this technology-enabled, Group Polarization effect delivers binary (Us/Them) opinions, highly-emotional public clashes, and the demonization of outsiders.

The question now is how far this goes. When and how will people get over the new closed-system polarization? When will they haltingly acknowledge that things got out of proportion? Or does this go – as it sometimes has historically – somewhere very ugly?

I think we have to assume that it will get ugly in at least some cases. But, I expect that at some point in the near future, one or more dramatic and ugly incidents will become known, the sins of polarization will be given a face, and the public (or at least as many as are awake) will get an object lesson. Then, hopefully, people will emerge from their self-congratulatory cloisters and back away from the pit.

In the end, unpleasant contrary opinions are good for us. Cognitive dissonance is our friend; it shows us what we have not integrated. Eliminating or even excluding contrary voices can be dangerous.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 4th, 2008 at 10:00 pm and is filed under Annual Conspiracy Hunt. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site. Your comments will be moderated but will appear as soon as humanly possible.