In this story, a scientist (or several thousand) huddle in a dusty laboratory somewhere. After years of hard work (aided and abetted by a manservant with a Slavic name and questionable clothing tastes); the scientist finally makes a breakthrough discovery. “It’s alive, [name of Slavic origin]“; he shrieks in triumph. Only the discovery happens to be something that turns around and does him in.
Frankenstein? Almost. This little discovery is called personalization.
A couple of weeks ago, I read The Polarization of Extremes - arguing that the internet makes it incredibly easy to self sort, or find a website/news outlet which caters to precisely the editorial slant that you prefer. In the old days, this was considered a good thing. Your news, your way. The article, however, paints a very different picture. It is now possible to swan from one site to another without ever seeing a dissenting or alternative point of view. If your push button issue happens to involve the birth of someone two thousand or two thousand five hundred or however many years ago, if you believe that the aliens will take us all away, if you believe that the Bush dynasty is good, bad or something other than ugly - well, there’s apparently a site or two dozen on the internet just for you.
Is this a bad thing? Well, if it stopped there - then maybe it isn’t. However, there is another interesting effect described.
The creation of enclaves of like-minded people had a second effect: It made both liberal groups and conservative groups significantly more homogeneous — and thus squelched diversity. Before people started to talk, many groups displayed a fair amount of internal disagreement on the three issues. The disagreements were greatly reduced as a result of a mere 15-minute discussion. In their anonymous statements, group members showed far more consensus after discussion than before. The discussion greatly widened the rift between liberals and conservatives on all three issues
So, what they’re really saying is that people actually discuss things within their own group and come to a consensus. Not bad, huh? Or, I suppose left unsaid, they leave the group and find somewhere more amenable. But it doesn’t end there either.
A key consequence of this kind of self-sorting is what we might call enclave extremism. When people end up in enclaves of like-minded people, they usually move toward a more extreme point in the direction to which the group’s members were originally inclined. Enclave extremism is a special case of the broader phenomenon of group polarization, which extends well beyond politics and occurs as groups adopt a more extreme version of whatever view is antecedently favored by their members
Does this sound familiar? Having observed a few online communities, it certainly struck a chord with me.
Clearly, despite its fairly recent lack of popularity, holding an extremist position is not all bad - the article cites a few instances where holding an extremist, contrary position was a good thing (ie:, the antislavery movement). Then again, a counter example can be found in the actions of some of the more militant environmental campaigners. Even a good stance can be diluted, dismissed or simply made easier to ignore by the actions of extremists. (Use your own examples here. There are lots).
The problem is, can people who have held an extremist position change? Dunbar’s Number seems to indicate that, the larger the community - the less likely the chances of change.
There are times when three hours of fascinating clicking on Wikipedia links can produce something useful. This is most likely not one of those times.
Update: I found this link which I really really like - it breaks down and quantifies Dunbar’s number into other spheres of activity.
