Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and DivideWhy 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 |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 30
Page 11
... the same whether they are in the minority or part of a unified panel. The three areas are abortion, capital punishment, and national security. Apparently judges have such strong convictions in such cases POLARIZATION 11.
... the same whether they are in the minority or part of a unified panel. The three areas are abortion, capital punishment, and national security. Apparently judges have such strong convictions in such cases POLARIZATION 11.
Page 12
... PUNISHING WRONGDOERS Now let us turn to the behavior of juries and, in particular, to the effects of deliberation on punitive damage awards. This is a pretty technical area, but an understanding of those effects will, I hope, illuminate ...
... PUNISHING WRONGDOERS Now let us turn to the behavior of juries and, in particular, to the effects of deliberation on punitive damage awards. This is a pretty technical area, but an understanding of those effects will, I hope, illuminate ...
Page 13
... punishment; 0 meant “none” and 6 meant “extremely severe” punishment. The third scale was the unbounded one of dollars. Should the company have to pay $10,000? $100,000? $1 million? More? Our central findings, involving personal injury ...
... punishment; 0 meant “none” and 6 meant “extremely severe” punishment. The third scale was the unbounded one of dollars. Should the company have to pay $10,000? $100,000? $1 million? More? Our central findings, involving personal injury ...
Page 14
... punishment of $50,000, or $100,000, or $1 million, or $10 million, or more? People just don't know. The dollar scale ... punishment judgment,” now on a scale of 0 to 8, where (again) 0 indicated that the defendant should not be punished ...
... punishment of $50,000, or $100,000, or $1 million, or $10 million, or more? People just don't know. The dollar scale ... punishment judgment,” now on a scale of 0 to 8, where (again) 0 indicated that the defendant should not be punished ...
Page 15
... punishment verdict.” You might predict (as we did) that people would compromise and that the verdicts of juries would be the median of punishment judgments of jurors. But your prediction would be badly wrong. Instead, the effect of ...
... punishment verdict.” You might predict (as we did) that people would compromise and that the verdicts of juries would be the median of punishment judgments of jurors. But your prediction would be badly wrong. Instead, the effect of ...
Contents
1 | |
21 | |
Movements | 99 |
Preventing Extremism | 127 |
Good Extremism | 149 |
Findings of Group Polarization | 161 |
Acknowledgments | 169 |
Notes | 173 |
Index | 187 |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
Al Qaeda American answer arguments asked behavior believe Biased Assimilation capital punishment Cass cautious shift climate change commitment Consider conspiracy theories create deliberation deliberative deliberative opinion poll democracy Democratic appointees Dictator Game direction dissent diversity domains effects enclaves ensure ethnic example experiment experimenter extreme movements extremists favor go to extremes group members group polarization groupthink guards homophily Ibid important increase informational cascade interactions Internet involving Janis’s juries jurors kind Leaderless Jihad like-minded types median ments Milgram’s nations occur outrage people’s percent Personality & Soc polarization games political predeliberation president Princeton prisoners problem produce Psychol public forum doctrine punishment punitive damage awards questions radical Republican appointees responsible result rhetorical advantage risk risky shift Robert Pape Robert Shiller role Sageman Scott McClellan sense Shiller shocks social influences Stanford Prison Experiment suggests Sunstein Suppose Team tend terrorism terrorists thresholds tion views volts Zimbardo