Is Herman Cain 'popular' because of 'false enforcement'?

[TER]

I stumbled upon this article and found some insightful information which might partly explain why Herman Cain is high in the polls. Part of it has been pasted below. At the bottom of the post is the pdf link of the study referenced in the article.

I wonder what we can do with this knowledge?



Breaking the Spiral of Silence (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/breakpoint-with-chuck-colson/breaking-the-spiral-of-silence.html)


Chuck Colson, BreakPoint
Wednesday, November 02, 2011


Inspired by Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” researchers Rob Willer, Ko Kuwabara and Michael Macy devised a set of ingenious experiments that showed how distressingly easy it is to make people go against what they believe to be true.

One of the experiments involved wine-tasting, in which participants evaluate both the wine and one another’s wine-tasting skills. The participants were given three samples of wine. In reality, all three samples were from the same bottle. One had even been tainted with vinegar!

Before they delivered their evaluation, they listened to other participants, who were plants, who praised the vinegar-laced wine as the best. Half of the participants went against their own taste buds and joined in praising the vinegary concoction.

Even more interesting is what happened next. Another participant, who was also a plant, told the truth about the wines. But when it came time for the participants to evaluate each other, some of them were permitted to do so confidentially, and the others had to do so publicly.

The ones who gave their evaluations confidentially praised the truth-teller. But those who had to evaluate the truth-teller publicly actually turned on him and gave him low marks.

The researchers call this phenomenon “false enforcement,” which they define as “the public enforcement of a norm that is not privately endorsed.”

What sustains the norm isn’t its popularity, much less its validity, but instead the desire to “avoid a negative social judgment from one’s peers,” according to the report. Important words.

And the desire to “avoid a negative social judgment” feeds what German sociologist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann called the “spiral of silence.”

Simply stated, out of a desire to avoid reprisal or isolation, people go along with what they think is the popular opinion — even if they object to that opinion personally. Instead of voicing their objections, they remain silent.

That’s precisely what’s happening in the debate over so-called same-sex marriage. Actually, “debate” is a misnomer. There’s no lack of evidence indicating that most Americans oppose it: Every time the question has been put on the ballot, voters have upheld the traditional definition of marriage.

Yet to voice that private opinion in public is to be subjected to a real-life version of what happened to the wine-tasters: An almost-universal chorus of people telling you that any “right-thinking” person favors so-called same-sex marriage, and that those who don’t are homophobes and bigots.

The result is the “spiral of silence.” People keep their supposedly wrong-thinking opinions to themselves, which, in turn, reinforces the impression that same-sex marriage is inevitable.

The good news is these kinds of spirals are fragile: Once exposed, they unravel. All it takes is someone like the little boy in Andersen’s fable to pipe up and say, “Hey, the emperor has no clothes!”...

pdf file of study referenced in article (http://willer.berkeley.edu/Willeretal2009.pdf)

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

I stumbled upon this article and found some insightful information which might partly explain why Herman Cain is high in the polls. Part of it has been pasted below. At the bottom of the post is the pdf link of the study referenced in the article.

I wonder what we can do with this knowledge?



Breaking the Spiral of Silence (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/breakpoint-with-chuck-colson/breaking-the-spiral-of-silence.html)


Chuck Colson, BreakPoint
Wednesday, November 02, 2011


Inspired by Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” researchers Rob Willer, Ko Kuwabara and Michael Macy devised a set of ingenious experiments that showed how distressingly easy it is to make people go against what they believe to be true.

One of the experiments involved wine-tasting, in which participants evaluate both the wine and one another’s wine-tasting skills. The participants were given three samples of wine. In reality, all three samples were from the same bottle. One had even been tainted with vinegar!

Before they delivered their evaluation, they listened to other participants, who were plants, who praised the vinegar-laced wine as the best. Half of the participants went against their own taste buds and joined in praising the vinegary concoction.

Even more interesting is what happened next. Another participant, who was also a plant, told the truth about the wines. But when it came time for the participants to evaluate each other, some of them were permitted to do so confidentially, and the others had to do so publicly.

The ones who gave their evaluations confidentially praised the truth-teller. But those who had to evaluate the truth-teller publicly actually turned on him and gave him low marks.

The researchers call this phenomenon “false enforcement,” which they define as “the public enforcement of a norm that is not privately endorsed.”

What sustains the norm isn’t its popularity, much less its validity, but instead the desire to “avoid a negative social judgment from one’s peers,” according to the report. Important words.

And the desire to “avoid a negative social judgment” feeds what German sociologist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann called the “spiral of silence.”

Simply stated, out of a desire to avoid reprisal or isolation, people go along with what they think is the popular opinion — even if they object to that opinion personally. Instead of voicing their objections, they remain silent.

That’s precisely what’s happening in the debate over so-called same-sex marriage. Actually, “debate” is a misnomer. There’s no lack of evidence indicating that most Americans oppose it: Every time the question has been put on the ballot, voters have upheld the traditional definition of marriage.

Yet to voice that private opinion in public is to be subjected to a real-life version of what happened to the wine-tasters: An almost-universal chorus of people telling you that any “right-thinking” person favors so-called same-sex marriage, and that those who don’t are homophobes and bigots.

The result is the “spiral of silence.” People keep their supposedly wrong-thinking opinions to themselves, which, in turn, reinforces the impression that same-sex marriage is inevitable.

The good news is these kinds of spirals are fragile: Once exposed, they unravel. All it takes is someone like the little boy in Andersen’s fable to pipe up and say, “Hey, the emperor has no clothes!”...

pdf file of study referenced in article (http://willer.berkeley.edu/Willeretal2009.pdf)

Cain has been using Mere Disagreement (opposite of Critical Thinking), to attract like-minded voters. He has conviction for "Inner-City Black Culture, Homosexuals, Islam, etc."

He's using hatred towards these things to draw in people who feel the same.

[TER]

In the study in the OP, the corporate media and their hired pundits are the plants who are pushing the wine with the vinegar in it.
Ron Paul is the plant who is telling them the truth.

In order to avoid a negative social judgment from one’s peers, they endorse Herman Cain because they don't want to go against the one being promoted by their peers. The only problem I'm seeing in making such comparisons is that if these telephone polls are considered confidential and yet they still confess to supporting Herman Cain, then this study might not easily apply. I hope that's not the case.

The last sentence in the article is the most important as far as this campaign is concerned. Who will be the little boy like in Anderson's fable who will reveal that the 'Emperor has no clothes'?

I know how some here feel about Sarah Palin, but if she really loves this country, it is time she publicly stands up and endorses Ron Paul. She can be that voice to the average Republican voter.

[TER]

Cain has been using Mere Disagreement (opposite of Critical Thinking), to attract like-minded voters. He has conviction for "Inner-City Black Culture, Homosexuals, Islam, etc."

He's using hatred towards these things to draw in people who feel the same.

I have no doubt that this is playing a role. Thanks for the insight.

[LawnWake]

Not just Cain, everyone who at one point was. We want Paul to be popular for the same reason. That's how you get votes. Create the image that it's ok to vote for Paul.

[TER]

Not just Cain, everyone who at one point was. We want Paul to be popular for the same reason. That's how you get votes. Create the image that it's ok to vote for Paul.

Besides being a good diplomat for Ron Paul and having respectful and amicable personal conversations with one's neighbors, what other methods can one do to draw more mass, high yield awareness? I'm guessing sign waving events might fall into this realm and perhaps posting on FB and such. Are there other methods the typical full time working supporter can engage in?

[Paulistinian]

I know how some here feel about Sarah Palin, but if she really loves this country, it is time she publicly stands up and endorses Ron Paul. She can be that voice to the average Republican voter.

I believe that Sarah Palin will endorse Ron Paul after he wins Iowa. She WANTS to endorse him, but does not want to throw away her career in doing so... She wants to use this opportunity to be a Republican King-Maker... If Ron Paul looks like he can win, Palin will back him and that endorsement may be enough to turn the tides and actually make him win.. If he doesn't look like he can win, Palin will act in the interest of her career and back whomever the winner appears to be.

[TER]

I believe that Sarah Palin will endorse Ron Paul after he wins Iowa...

I hope this is true. All of it. Especially the part of him winning Iowa...

[Paulistinian]

I hope this is true. All of it. Especially the part of him winning Iowa...

It helps to contact her and tell her why you think she should endorse Ron Paul:

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?v=inf…
website:http://www.sarahpac.com
Email:info@sarahpac.com

SarahPAC
P.O. Box 7711
Arlington, VA 22207

(202) 747-1812

[TER]

It helps to contact her and tell her why you think she should endorse Ron Paul:

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin?v=inf…
website:http://www.sarahpac.com
Email:info@sarahpac.com

SarahPAC
P.O. Box 7711
Arlington, VA 22207

(202) 747-1812

lol! I was just thinking about writing her a letter or something and looked on the internet for her contact info and you posted it all right hear! :) That's definitely a sign that I should! Thanks!

[LawnWake]

Besides being a good diplomat for Ron Paul and having respectful and amicable personal conversations with one's neighbors, what other methods can one do to draw more mass, high yield awareness? I'm guessing sign waving events might fall into this realm and perhaps posting on FB and such. Are there other methods the typical full time working supporter can engage in?

It's tough because he's still considered out of the mainstream. Like Paulistinian says, a Palin endorsement would seal the deal. After that we would get Bachmann and likely a few other mainstream Republicans.

I'm just sayin', a lot of people seem to downplay the other candidates' success. 'Oh the media makes them popular' or 'it's just in fashion to support them', but that doesn't make their support any less real or less powerful. Scientists once tested 2 groups of people, they've showed them the same song, but one group was told that it was a hit and the other wasn't told anything. The group that was told that it was a hit liked the song a lot more than the other group. Mass opinion is the most powerful decision making tool, much more than critical thinking and we can't change that, we can't just make people think. If we ignore that (which we are), we are not using the right tools to get votes. This is what I've been saying for very long. You can't catch hawks with birdseed.

Hence why you get so many 'I like Ron Paul but....' replies. Or why Paul is the second choice for a lot of people, whereas the first choice is a radically different candidate (Bachmann, Cain.. hell in 2008 Obama). They like Paul, but it's not ok to like him, so they won't show it in votes. Or hell, I wouldn't be surprised if we'd get a number of votes for Paul from people who deny that they even like him.

This is why an Iowa victory is important. 'If it's OK for Iowans to vote for him, it is for us too!' It's all about perception. This is why attacking people who disagree with us or even debating them doesn't help most of the time. It may if you invest a lot of time with like, parents or people you talk to frequently, but that's it.

If anything, we need to push positions less and personality more. That and attach a persona to the position. For example, don't get too much into Ron Paul's foreign policy when talking to indies or Democrats. Just say that he's 'the anti-war candidate'. Repeatedly. People love the 'notion' more than the reality. I mean, Obama is a raging sociopath but a lot of Democrats still think he's a peace president because that's the perception of him that they got used to. They'll think his hands are tied or that he's done everything he can, but that he's still a peace loving angel sent by God himself to end all wars.

We don't want awareness for Paul. He already has awareness. We want awareness of a certain nature.

[Paulatized]

Too many people "go along, to get along." I have been thinking that considering how much is at stake this election cycle that people who KNOW Ron Paul speaks truth would throw personal considerations aside and adamantly throw their support behind him. Like Pat Buchanan, Jim Demint, Sarah Palin, Bachmann, Peter Schiff and many others. They don't want to been seen as throwing their support to a "fringe" candidate, the truth be damned. Cain is just purposefully adding to the perception of Paul as a loonie, and its working on the sheep.

[danbeaulieu]

Cain has tapped and energized the black vote as well. I got into an argument via twitter and its 140 word restriction with a person named @Catholics4Cain instead of responding to what I said she sent me to a link to some dude named "O' who does a black culture TV show where he routinely bashes Ron Paul as an ignorant big government libertarian and praises cain as some messiah.

How shallow, racist and ignorant. The ONLY reason they support cain is his skin. All of Cains short-comings and folly's are negated by the color of his skin.

[Patrick Henry]

Cain is popular because he is black and Obama is black. GOP: "We can also run a black man."

[flightlesskiwi]

Cain is popular because he is black and Obama is black. GOP: "We can also run a black man."

^this. this is what i keep hearing in my small circle of politically-interested acquaintances. and they are in the 40 to 65 age group. "he's black, he says what we're all thinking (electrified fences, islam), and he's not a politician."

it's like obama 2.0. only without good campaign managing. which makes Cain more grassroots-y and appealing to those who consider themselves part of the tea party.

edit: and i completely agree with your assessment, TER. the group i'm speaking about jumped on supporting Cain after the tea party ex-president (who moved but is still somewhat involved) espoused her unabashed support for him when the media started pushing him.

[jasonxe]

next election will get a Eskimo and Native American to run.

[affa]

Any interest I had in that article dissipated as soon as they tried to tortuously compare it to the same-sex marriage debate.

[Simple]

Very interesting. Following this logic, what Ron Paul needs to demonstrate is that he is not a lone wolf. The people are moving our way as is the mainstream, this just needs to be demonstrated.

If asked about his economic plan he could mention Rush and the Mises Institute. He does a good job bringing our troops into the conversation when talking about foreign policy. When he mentions the Fed he could bring up Pat Buchanan or the support he's beginning to receive from the Republican leadership in Congress (I'm thinking of the letter Cantor, McConnell, Boehner sent the Fed in September). He could credit Michelle Bachmann for her support against raising the debt limit. He could complement Perry or Santorum for adopting a free market approach on energy. Ronald Reagan is always a good name to drop and it seems to be in style.

[kazmlsj]

False Enforcement --> media propaganda.

It works well when you have a populace that REFUSES to think for themselves, do some research, etc.

And

When the media is as controlled as it is in our country it is all the easier.