I would add that when a view is perceived as very unpopular, the only people willing to speak up for it publicly will be unusually stubborn/disagreeable/nonconformist people, aka weirdos, which reinforces the social pressure against expressing the view by creating the appearance that only weirdos believe it!
Perhaps part of the problem is that a single student with an itchy Twitter finger can easily round up a virtual posse, cow the administration into line, and start extracting blood from facility in fear of losing jobs, and students in fear of being branded with a permanent scarlet letter. Oh, and death threats along with fear of reprisals to family and friends might also factor into the equation.
When administrators start refusing to lend any credence to Twitter but rather make life difficult for busybodies eager to police ideology conformity, perhaps free speech will start to naturally flourish.
I'm with Kit; I'm not convinced by the diagnosis here. The article says this:
> Suppose a politically progressive person offers a commonly held progressive view on an issue like Israel-Palestine, affirmative action, or some other topic. Fearing social sanction, people in the out-group remain silent. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘯-𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱’𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦. They stay silent because they assume that they are the only ones in the group who disagree, and they do not want to be isolated from their group. The only people who speak up are those who agree with the original speaker, and so the perception of in-group unanimity gets reinforced.
We're making the assumption, here, that outgroup members have completely different reasons for not speaking up than do ingroup members. The outgroup members are afraid of being punished for their views, but the ingroup members have no such fear; the only reason they don't say anything is that they believe their views are less popular than they are. (Though frankly, a disparity of 63% against you to 15% in favor is already tremendously unpopular.)
Why do we make this assumption? Why not ask whether, when students (or university presidents) at Harvard do reveal their own thoughts on a topic, they do or don't 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁? That seems like a much stronger influence on who is willing to speak than perceptions of exactly how widespread support for your opinions might be.
Or is it possible that H students, being conscious about the potential risks to their planned internship / recruitment at Google, McKinsey, the New Yorker, etc, pull their punches? Why jeopardize the precious career edifice they have built?
I wonder if you asked Harvard students "What percentage of those who view race-based affirmation action dis-favorably are "white" supremacist?" For a Harvard student the correct answer is all of them. I think the naive Bayesian would say, "%50"; the intellectually charitable would say, "none" and the intellectually humble would say, "I don't know". Why does the Harvard student answer in this way-because purity spirals are iterative games and "preference falsification" is the best strategy. The next implicit question is "Of the people, who believe that, "those who don't think people are "white" supremacist who view race-based affirmation action dis-favorably aren't "white" supremacist:, are also in fact "white" supremacist?" The correct answer for the Harvard student is again "all of them".
You can do this all you like, but it won't help. Why would anybody speak up when leftists are mean and always get away with being mean. There is zero reason to debate with somebody who wields a knife and happily uses it, and always gets away with using it.
I would add that when a view is perceived as very unpopular, the only people willing to speak up for it publicly will be unusually stubborn/disagreeable/nonconformist people, aka weirdos, which reinforces the social pressure against expressing the view by creating the appearance that only weirdos believe it!
Perhaps part of the problem is that a single student with an itchy Twitter finger can easily round up a virtual posse, cow the administration into line, and start extracting blood from facility in fear of losing jobs, and students in fear of being branded with a permanent scarlet letter. Oh, and death threats along with fear of reprisals to family and friends might also factor into the equation.
When administrators start refusing to lend any credence to Twitter but rather make life difficult for busybodies eager to police ideology conformity, perhaps free speech will start to naturally flourish.
I'm with Kit; I'm not convinced by the diagnosis here. The article says this:
> Suppose a politically progressive person offers a commonly held progressive view on an issue like Israel-Palestine, affirmative action, or some other topic. Fearing social sanction, people in the out-group remain silent. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘯-𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱’𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦. They stay silent because they assume that they are the only ones in the group who disagree, and they do not want to be isolated from their group. The only people who speak up are those who agree with the original speaker, and so the perception of in-group unanimity gets reinforced.
We're making the assumption, here, that outgroup members have completely different reasons for not speaking up than do ingroup members. The outgroup members are afraid of being punished for their views, but the ingroup members have no such fear; the only reason they don't say anything is that they believe their views are less popular than they are. (Though frankly, a disparity of 63% against you to 15% in favor is already tremendously unpopular.)
Why do we make this assumption? Why not ask whether, when students (or university presidents) at Harvard do reveal their own thoughts on a topic, they do or don't 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁? That seems like a much stronger influence on who is willing to speak than perceptions of exactly how widespread support for your opinions might be.
Or is it possible that H students, being conscious about the potential risks to their planned internship / recruitment at Google, McKinsey, the New Yorker, etc, pull their punches? Why jeopardize the precious career edifice they have built?
I wonder if you asked Harvard students "What percentage of those who view race-based affirmation action dis-favorably are "white" supremacist?" For a Harvard student the correct answer is all of them. I think the naive Bayesian would say, "%50"; the intellectually charitable would say, "none" and the intellectually humble would say, "I don't know". Why does the Harvard student answer in this way-because purity spirals are iterative games and "preference falsification" is the best strategy. The next implicit question is "Of the people, who believe that, "those who don't think people are "white" supremacist who view race-based affirmation action dis-favorably aren't "white" supremacist:, are also in fact "white" supremacist?" The correct answer for the Harvard student is again "all of them".
You can do this all you like, but it won't help. Why would anybody speak up when leftists are mean and always get away with being mean. There is zero reason to debate with somebody who wields a knife and happily uses it, and always gets away with using it.