Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide [Hardcover]

Cass R. Sunstein (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: May 13, 2009

Why do people become extremists? What makes people become so dismissive of opposing views? Why is political and cultural polarization so pervasive in America?

In Going to Extremes, renowned legal scholar and best-selling author Cass R. Sunstein offers startling insights into why and when people gravitate toward extremism. Sunstein marshals a wealth of evidence that shows that when like-minded people gather in groups, they tend to become more extreme in their views than they were before. Thus when liberals group get together to debate climate change, they end up more alarmed about climate change, while conservatives brought together to discuss same-sex unions become more set against same-sex unions. In courtrooms, radio stations, and chatrooms, enclaves of like-minded people are breeding ground for extreme movements. Indeed, Sunstein shows that a good way to create an extremist group, or a cult of any kind, is to separate members from the rest of society, either physically or psychologically. Sunstein's findings help to explain such diverse phenomena as political outrage on the Internet, unanticipated "blockbusters" in the film and music industry, the success of the disability rights movement, ethnic conflict in Iraq and former Yugoslavia, and Islamic terrorism.

Providing a wealth of real-world examples--sometimes entertaining, sometimes alarming--Sunstein offers a fresh explanation of why partisanship has become so bitter and debate so rancorous in America and abroad.

Praise for the hardcover:

"A path-breaking exploration of the perils and possibilities created by polarization among the like-minded."
--Kathleen Hall Jamieson, co-author of unSpun and Echo Chamber

"Poses a powerful challenge to anyone concerned with the future of our democracy. He reveals the dark side to our cherished freedoms of thought, expression and participation. Initiates an urgent dialogue which any thoughtful citizen should be interested in."
--James S. Fishkin, author of When the People Speak

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Harvard law professor Sunstein (Radicals in Robes) explores the nature of group decision making, largely expounding on his contention that homogenous groups of like-minded people tend to adopt more extreme positions than groups with a diversity of opinions. As in his previous, coauthored book, Nudge, in which he argued that small incentives can subtly push people toward making better decisions, Sunstein marshals empirical evidence in aid of his argument, which largely focuses on politics and public policy. As President Obama's nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein's ideas about such matters have now attained a level of national importance, but with the exception of a few notable potshots at the decision making in George W. Bush's White House, the book is not ideological and displays a keen interest in diverse areas ranging from the mindset that leads to genocide to how conspiracy theories form and are propagated. Interestingly, and most helpfully, Sunstein returns repeatedly to the recruitment and decision-making processes of Islamic terrorists, finding in these groups the purest example of the radicalizing echo chamber effect that the book warns against. (May)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Review

"Cass Sunstein has written Going to Extremes for those confounded by a country that remains stubbornly polarized. In clear, precise language, he explains that extremism is a consequence of the company we keep. He challenges not only what we think, but how we come to our beliefs, and he demonstrates that diversity of thought is the one ingredient necessary for both a healthy state and a working democracy." --Bill Bishop, author of The Big Sort

"A path-breaking exploration of the perils and possibilities created by polarization among the like-minded."--Kathleen Hall Jamieson, co-author of unSpun and Echo Chamber

"Sunstein's book poses a powerful challenge to anyone concerned with the future of our democracy. He reveals the dark side to our cherished freedoms of thought, expression and participation. New strategies and new designs are required to make political discussion the constructive force our ideals prescribe. His book initiates an urgent dialogue which any thoughtful citizen should be interested in." --James S. Fishkin, author of When the People Speak

"Harvard law professor Sunstein (Radicals in Robes) explores the nature of group decision making, largely expounding on his contention that homogenous groups of like-minded people tend to adopt more extreme positions than groups with a diversity of opinions.... As President Obama's nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein's ideas...[have] attained a level of national importance."--Publishers Weekly

"Cass Sunstein's work and theories have never been more important."--Seed

"meant to unsettle us in the way his earlier work did"--Slate

"An excellent study of the conditions that drive events like the financial crisis...a valuable survey of research pertinent to managers in various areas of finance, and it suggests a range of practical, utilizable approaches to improving decision-making processes."--The Investment Professional

"A fun book to read...Sunstein is a brilliant writer, learned and clever."--Contemporary Sociology

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 208 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA; 1 edition (May 13, 2009)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0195378016
• ISBN-13: 978-0195378016
• Product Dimensions: 5.8 x 0.8 x 8.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (15 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #831,049 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #71 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Specific Topics > Propaganda & Political Psychology

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

9 of 11 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars The merits and dangers of consensus June 8, 2009

By laurens van den muyzenberg

Format:Hardcover

The book starts with something we all know, that it is more pleasant to talk with people that agree with you than with those that disagree with you. What we do not realize is that by acting this way we become "polarized". As all agree with what we think we start to believe that what we think is true. The author Cass Sunstein does an excellent job to make you aware of this happening and the consequences.

An extreme example is terrorists that form groups with extreme polarization. Most of these terrorists have experienced moral outrage, personal experience of discrimination, economic exclusion, even though many are well educated and come from middle-class families.

Polarization can be bad but also good like overthrowing the Lenin Communist system in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, or abolishing slavery in the United States.

The author presents his view as to what can be done to avoid bad polarization and tolerate good polarization. He believes the only answer is free speech and tolerance; acceptance and respect for diverse views, for diversity. He points out that dictatorships are breeding grounds for terrorism. Polarized groups objecting to dictatorships do not trust what the dictatorships claim to be the truth. Discrimination and outrage do the rest.

It is also relevant for business. Leaders that act like dictators will before or after their death ruin the company. A board of directors must contain members with different perspectives that forcefully argue with each other and management. Also at the level of management vigorous arguments about different perspectives are essential. What the author omits is the importance that after vigorous argument in boards and management a decision taken must be supported 100% by all the members of the board and of top management.

The book also enriches your vocabulary and concepts with words like: conspiracy entrepreneur, interactive echo-chamber, first and second order diversity, enclave deliberation, public forum doctrine, informational cascade and more.

Finally the book gets off to a slow start but towards the end it becomes exciting to read.
The Leader's Way: Business, Buddhism and Happiness in an Interconnected World

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Fascinating tour into the sociology of extremism July 25, 2011

By Rolf Dobelli HALL OF FAMETOP 1000 REVIEWER

Format:Hardcover

This fascinating tour of the sociology of extremism provides a general description of its impact on society and describes specific tactics for leaders and managers who want to foster open discussion while promoting a democratic workplace. Harvard Law School professor Cass R. Sunstein addresses polarization by presenting results from numerous studies. Polarization affects every group interaction, including those of lawyers, judges, doctors, elected officials and the military. getAbstract recommends this book to those interested in promoting open discussions or in preventing pathologies that create mob behaviors and even genocide.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars How Polarization Happens July 12, 2011

By G.X. Larson

Format:Hardcover

A test subject walks into a room. In the room there are four other "test subjects" (agent provoceteurs) sitting near a projector. The machine projects an image of three lines onto the wall. The lines are similar in length, but one is objectively shorter than the other two. The test subject is asked to decide which of the lines is shortest, if any, and she must discuss with the group. The four other members of the group (actually hired by the experimenter) all agree that the lines are the same length. The test subject does a double take of the projection, then she squints hard at it. She could have sworn that the one on the right was shorter than the others, but then again she has poor eyesight, she says to her self. She ends up agreeing with the four others. Every Psych 101 student is familiar with stories like this one, and almost everyone is familiar with the famous Milgram experiment. Such experiments show how and when an individual can be pushed to falsity and/or extremes.

Author Cass Sunstein is a prominent voice in the behavioral economics field (he is co-author of Nudge) and hence well qualified to write Going to Extremes, a short book on social psychology. The book examines how groups can polarize as well as the circumstances under which groups refrain form polarization. Sunstein gives three good examples of polarization in the early part of his book: Federal judge panels (made of three judges) are more likely to polarize when a panel's ideology is homogeneous; that is, when there are three democratically inclined judges on a panel, the panel's decision is more likely to be strongly in favor of liberal policies, and vice versa with conservative inclined panel. When a panel is characterized with a 2:1 ratio of liberals to conservatives (and vice versa) the decision is likely to be far less polarized. When deliberating punishments, a jury as a group is likely to deliberate to extremes vis a vis individual jurors; that is, an individual juror might merely think of meting out a monetary punishment of $10,000, but after a group deliberation, a jury proper will move to an "extreme" and either decide on a punishment of $50,000 or $1,000. The third example is perhaps most telling and familiar: researchers formed small citizen groups with citizens from the Colorado cities of Boulder and Colorado Springs. Boulder is a more liberal city, while Colorado Springs is a more conservative-inclined city. When a group from Boulder was told to discuss a question like, Should international law do more to combat global warming?, the group was likely to move toward an extreme. The converse was also likely with Colorado Springs' groups.

What explains these phenomena? There are many variables. The obvious one is whether a group is homogeneous in its ideology. Information also plays a key role. If a group of vegans is given a news article exposing that a popular fast food chain treats its animals inhumanely, or that red meat causes cancer, they will almost undoubtedly polarize after discussion, since the new information amplifies their already held convictions. Corroboration can also move individuals in extreme directions even if the group members begin a discussion unsure of their beliefs. In such a case, if each group member is equally uncertain about, for example, whether torture is wrong, but all members have the same information (for example, torture helped get Osama bin Laden), then after discussion the group is likely to polarize in favor of torture. Reputation can be a key catalyst as well: a group member who emits the appearance of knowledge can push others to extremes due to the said person is perceived as being correct; even if some of the other group members' opinions conflict with the person with the reputation, they will often yield to him or her. (A year ago I was playing Trivial Pursuit with my family and my team was posed with the question: Who was the leader of the Soviet Union when the Berlin Wall was constructed? "Stalin!", I shouted. "I just read a book on it!" To my embarrassment the answer was Nikita Khrushchev, but my team yielded to my conviction because they perceived me as being knowledgeable and having the correct answer.)

Similarly, reputation acts to influence individuals insofar as they are concerned about their reputations. (Contrast this with the idea of reputation above, where individuals yielded to others who they perceived has having good reputations.) Here's an example copied form the book, "Suppose that a group of doctors is deciding what steps to take to resusciate apparently doomed patients. Are individual doctors less likely, or more likely, to support heroic efforts than teams of doctors?" Individual doctors are less likely because their reputations are not in jeopardy when acting alone, out of the eyesight of other doctors. A team of doctors is more likely to support heroic efforts because each individual doctor will yield to the "rhetorical advantage", where the rhetorical advantage is to do whatever it takes to save a life. That is to say, an individual in a team of doctors does not want his reputation to be tainted by opposing the sanctity of human life.

Above are just a few examples of polarization. Sunstein's book is an excellent survey of when, how, and why polarization happens, as well as when, how, and why it often doesn't happen.