Trend towards Adrianism

Browsing for new books at the library is a seriously awesome pastime of mine. So, when I came upon Cass R. Sunstein’s book, I was hooked. It has two very impressive features; a phenomenal cover design and an enticing title. I give a little ‘hurrah’ for marketing in literature and picked it up!

I have not been disappointed. The library may be a little disappointed, as I was meant to return it last week, but we’ll be ok. I HAD to finish it and have it here to write about. The ideas and studies presented in Going to Extremes: How like minds unite and divide, were extremely compelling, explain enormous amounts of social interactions, and, I think, were incorrect. Er, I mean, very correct and perfect. Hm, shall I be united or divided?

How do likeminded people become extremists? It is certainly a question that I’ve asked as perfectly competent people make ridiculous decisions, which I’ve witnessed, stupefied. Or, better (worse) yet, be in a situation where one’s voice is entirely disregarded as the group runs away from truth. Oh, how that stings. And, it has a name! It’s called ‘cascading,’ but can go in any direction. And, I even discovered why, that one time, when I was completely certain of my own calculations, then looked at the crowd intent on a particularly lousy decision and decided not to put up the fight, merely excusing myself. Aha, I practiced self-censoring and self-selection. Notably, it has bothered me ever since, as I do not like to take that route.

There are two parts of this book that really got me thinking. One addressed the extremism of Islamic terrorism, and the other was a study of Stanford students. To address Sunstein’s whole argument leading up to his example of Islamic terrorism just might necessitate quoting the whole first part of the book. As I won’t do that, I’ll just give the clincher. If you would like to see a change in something that you find to be incorrect extremism, engage on respected terms. I have often encouragingly quipped ‘politely!’ to those wishing to go head to head with their opponent. Oh, to have someone whom you respect open your eyes to new information and ideas – so beautiful and successful. In the plainest terms, Sunstein concludes that only Muslims can change the mindset of Islamic terrorists.

The other was a study of university students who play acted a psychological experiment as guards and prisoners, wherein the activities were really foul. There was one quote by the psychologist conducting the study, Zimbardo, which has irked me. He said that the students showed no differences at the beginning of the study yet were entirely dissimilar by the end. From what I read, I would disagree, saying they were all still completely uniform at the end. Not one showed heroics, not one rose above any ‘station,’ and not one proved driven by any internal morality. Each participant responded to the authority with obedience, squelching any personally held ideas of individual worth; only a couple of the ‘prisoners’ objected to their treatment, necessitating removal from the project. (The fact that scientists may no longer conduct such human experiments for study is slightly encouraging… of course TV networks may produce highly similar ‘games’ for entertainment value.) Sunstein continues to discuss Abu Ghraib, individual thresholds against bad behavior, and concludes that there are dispositions towards evil and towards good. The makeup and interaction of groups will determine the final outcome.

So I’ve discovered. That there is the opportunity to influence outcomes through bold statements, truth notwithstanding, is overwhelmingly supported through studies and experience. That one may stand against group polarization (or create an opposing group) and turn the tide of extremism is an idea I hope to develop. Watch out for Adrianism!