Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Come Down Off The Cross, We Can Use The Wood


From The American Prospect:
Liberals' Special Snowflake Syndrome

PAUL WALDMAN NOVEMBER 19, 2013
A new study suggests a reason why liberals have so much trouble acting together.
...
It isn't just that liberals are more divided and conservatives are more united, it's also that liberals believe they're more divided, and conservatives believe they're more unified, even when it's not necessarily true. The study asked people about their opinions on a range of questions on both political and non-political topics, then asked them to guess what proportion of people who shared their general ideology agreed with them on that particular question. The results showed that liberals displayed a "truly false uniqueness effect"—they were more likely to think that their views were different from those of their peers, even when they weren't—while conservatives displayed a "truly false consensus effect," believing that their views were the same as their peers, even when they weren't.

The authors also found evidence that the liberal false uniqueness effect has at least part of its origins in liberals' personal desire to feel unique, as measured by a "need for uniqueness" scale. In other words, liberals who were more likely to see themselves as the type of person who's different and special were more likely to think their opinions were unique as well.
...

But it has some serious real-world implications, because your perception of how much consensus there is among your own group can affect the decisions you make when it comes to political action. As the authors of the study suggest, "liberals' greater desire for uniqueness likely undermines their ability to capitalize on the consensus that exists within their ranks and hinders successful group mobilization, whereas moderates' and conservatives' weaker desire to feel unique (i.e., greater desire to conform) could work to their advantage by allowing them to perceive consensus that does not actually exist and, in turn, rally their base."

Anyone who has worked in liberal politics would probably respond, "No kidding." Liberal groups are notoriously difficult to move to action, particularly since they spend so much time letting everybody have their say. The false perception of disagreement this study indicates liberals may suffer from is somewhat ironic, given that so many liberal groups try to operate via consensus, whereas conservative organizations tend to be more hierarchical. Or maybe it's not ironic at all—the very process of trying to arrive at consensus can expose divisions, or more likely, make tiny divisions seem much more consequential than they are.
...

5 comments:

JerryB said...

One group is strong because they are more dictatorial and one group is weak because they are more democratic?

Anonymous said...

Good morning, Mr. Glass.

While I'm not going to disagree that the Left is less Borg-like than the Right, nor that there's such a thing as too much individualism, I think there are a few variables missing from an analysis of our effectiveness...

1. The Money, and the powerful people the Money buys, aren't usually on our side.

2. The Left tends to challenge the system more than the Right. Hence why the Tea Party was immediately welcomed by the establishment, while Occupy Wall Street was met with anti-riot measures, even when there was no logical reason to do so.

3. Being right doesn't always lead to the success that being wrong does.

Enjoy your day.

---Kevin Holsinger

Anonymous said...

Mr. Holsinger makes some good points above.

I've also noticed that in recent years right-wing groups have been much more adept at re-purposing existing institutions to take over than the left has. We seem to prefer to challenge from the outside rather than try to take over the establishment. Given the level of discomfort we can see with Obama, this may be a "no shit"-level comment though.

-- Nonny Mouse

wiley said...

Generally speaking, the left has by and large lost their love for the masses and the common good beyond certain ideals they have, cherish, and put above practically, and the needs of large swathes of people. The obsession on the public option, for instance, what good is there in arguing that the "good" means letting a whole lot of people stay sick and die until a bug up someone's ass becomes the law?

I've got mine, fuck you is, practically speaking, no more humane than I've got my ideals, fuck you.

wiley said...

Generally speaking, the left has by and large lost their love for the masses and the common good beyond certain ideals they have, cherish, and put above practically, and the needs of large swathes of people. The obsession on the public option, for instance, what good is there in arguing that the "good" means letting a whole lot of people stay sick and die until a bug up someone's ass becomes the law?

I've got mine, fuck you is, practically speaking, no more lib than liberal I've got my ideals, fuck you.