- Joined
- Dec 20, 2022
Illusory polarization is basically the hypothesis that most people:
Communication Fault:
Probably the most obvious reason this happens is simply that we suck at communicating. We all have significantly more nuanced views about pretty much any subject we give a shit about than we are capable of expressing. It's also in our nature to pick out only the bits of a statement we deem "relevant" when listening and it's easy for a lot of nuance to be glossed over in the process. So only a fraction of the intent makes it into the broadcast and only a fraction of the broadcast is received.
Naive Realism:
People aren't very good at evaluating their own perceptions. There's the implicit assumption that we see things "the way they are" and, if someone sees something else, it's the other guy who's wrong. And this often gets projected outwards. We assume that a rational and unbiased observer is going to think, mostly, the same way we do and so any deviation is a result of irrationality or bias. Note that the people who are the least cognizant of their own biases tend to be the most heavily influenced by them (no shit).
The Personal Overton Window:
Just as a society at large has a collective sense of what views are "allowed" to be entertained, there is a similar window of views we consider worthy of entertainment. Mostly an extension of the naive realism described above: this is the range of views rational and "less-biased" people hold. Of course, we place ourselves more-or-less in the middle of it. Our exaggerated impression of what "our guys" tend to think typically occupies the fringe of this window and so "the other guys" end up falling outside of it because their "distance" on the scale is larger than the guys you already tentatively agree with. Your allies might be a little misguided or lacking in nuance. But your opposition just looks silly.
Charitability (Too Much or Not Enough?):
Part of arguing in good faith means assuming the person you're arguing with is being intellectually honest and they aren't morons. Unless proven otherwise, it's basic charitability to treat your opposition as if he honestly believes what he says and not to patronize him as if you're talking to a 5 year old. Betray this trust and communication breaks down. One example that I (perhaps due to my own biases) am particularly cognizant of where "too much charitability" meets "not enough" is the famous NAXALT argument.
Throughout this post I have been making a lot of generalizations. I do so under the assumption that you're smart enough to know I'm generalizing and evaluate my statements with that in mind. So when someone responds with "not all [x] are like that," it indicates you're not being charitable to me (you think I'm too stupid to hold that basic level of nuance myself) or I shouldn't be charitable to you (you're so stupid that you need that basic level of nuance spelled out to you). Perhaps it's me that was being too charitable in the first place.
How this relates to illusory polarization is that we are often selectively charitable to views depending on how much we initially agree with them. If a statement falls outside of our "personal Overton window" then we're more likely to stop listening there and assume the most radical interpretation of it than we are to appreciate the nuance the people who hold the view actually express.
The Hostile Media Effect:
This is more a result of illusory polarization and related effects than it is a cause of them. No matter someone's political persuasions, they will typically come to the conclusion that the media, at large, is against them. I'm not going to sit here and say the media isn't generally biased towards a certain party (it absolutely is). But experimentation has borne out that people of opposite political persuasions can view the same piece of media and conclude it is biased against them. This leads to a positive feedback loop of confirmation bias:
"The media is biased against me. A lot of 'truly moderate' views are perceived as radically adversarial. This is more evidence the media is biased against me. More 'truly moderate' views are interpreted as radical."
There's more I could say about this, because there always is, but I've already rambled much too long about shit you all probably are already well aware of and I probably forgot a lot of shit I wanted to say in the process of writing. So I'm gonna cut it off here.
- Consider themselves fairly "neutral." They lean one direction or the other.
- Consider their "allies" to be significantly more radical than themselves.
- Consider their "opponents" to be even more radical than that.
Communication Fault:
Probably the most obvious reason this happens is simply that we suck at communicating. We all have significantly more nuanced views about pretty much any subject we give a shit about than we are capable of expressing. It's also in our nature to pick out only the bits of a statement we deem "relevant" when listening and it's easy for a lot of nuance to be glossed over in the process. So only a fraction of the intent makes it into the broadcast and only a fraction of the broadcast is received.
Naive Realism:
People aren't very good at evaluating their own perceptions. There's the implicit assumption that we see things "the way they are" and, if someone sees something else, it's the other guy who's wrong. And this often gets projected outwards. We assume that a rational and unbiased observer is going to think, mostly, the same way we do and so any deviation is a result of irrationality or bias. Note that the people who are the least cognizant of their own biases tend to be the most heavily influenced by them (no shit).
The Personal Overton Window:
Just as a society at large has a collective sense of what views are "allowed" to be entertained, there is a similar window of views we consider worthy of entertainment. Mostly an extension of the naive realism described above: this is the range of views rational and "less-biased" people hold. Of course, we place ourselves more-or-less in the middle of it. Our exaggerated impression of what "our guys" tend to think typically occupies the fringe of this window and so "the other guys" end up falling outside of it because their "distance" on the scale is larger than the guys you already tentatively agree with. Your allies might be a little misguided or lacking in nuance. But your opposition just looks silly.
Charitability (Too Much or Not Enough?):
Part of arguing in good faith means assuming the person you're arguing with is being intellectually honest and they aren't morons. Unless proven otherwise, it's basic charitability to treat your opposition as if he honestly believes what he says and not to patronize him as if you're talking to a 5 year old. Betray this trust and communication breaks down. One example that I (perhaps due to my own biases) am particularly cognizant of where "too much charitability" meets "not enough" is the famous NAXALT argument.
Throughout this post I have been making a lot of generalizations. I do so under the assumption that you're smart enough to know I'm generalizing and evaluate my statements with that in mind. So when someone responds with "not all [x] are like that," it indicates you're not being charitable to me (you think I'm too stupid to hold that basic level of nuance myself) or I shouldn't be charitable to you (you're so stupid that you need that basic level of nuance spelled out to you). Perhaps it's me that was being too charitable in the first place.
How this relates to illusory polarization is that we are often selectively charitable to views depending on how much we initially agree with them. If a statement falls outside of our "personal Overton window" then we're more likely to stop listening there and assume the most radical interpretation of it than we are to appreciate the nuance the people who hold the view actually express.
The Hostile Media Effect:
This is more a result of illusory polarization and related effects than it is a cause of them. No matter someone's political persuasions, they will typically come to the conclusion that the media, at large, is against them. I'm not going to sit here and say the media isn't generally biased towards a certain party (it absolutely is). But experimentation has borne out that people of opposite political persuasions can view the same piece of media and conclude it is biased against them. This leads to a positive feedback loop of confirmation bias:
"The media is biased against me. A lot of 'truly moderate' views are perceived as radically adversarial. This is more evidence the media is biased against me. More 'truly moderate' views are interpreted as radical."
There's more I could say about this, because there always is, but I've already rambled much too long about shit you all probably are already well aware of and I probably forgot a lot of shit I wanted to say in the process of writing. So I'm gonna cut it off here.
got to write the history books. And due to the naive realism mentioned above, they'll end up portraying The Good Guys 