Silent groups let a vocal few dominate opinion through sheer volume of talk

Evidence

Since there was little time for talk of any kind, just a few words made a big difference. The group atmosphere was directed by the few, mainly male, members who were most eager to look comfortably unrestrained, most energetically trying to make themselves look like fools before someone else did. The result was a group context which was more complacently awash in racist, violent talk than most participants would have preferred. Even though most members sometimes privately objected to these opinions, they sometimes ended up quoting the vocal members’ opinions, for lack of anyone else to quote. Opinion leaders had to wax certain. Their opinions had to be expressible in one line and could not require explanation, because the point of taking them was to present a quick rejoinder, a snappy line, a sound-bite, to appear knowledgeable, not to slog through a reasoned discourse. Their certainty on all topics was never totally serious though, but, like racist joking, worked through grand, semi-joking hyperbole. — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics, 775

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Most group-discussion participants stayed completely silent — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 1879; A narrow dedicated group can outweigh an apathetic electorate; Members avoided serious conversation and stayed ignorant of each other’s basic facts — Nina Eliasoph, Avoiding politics: how Americans…, 779 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• A narrow dedicated group can outweigh an apathetic electorate #exemplifies (0.75)
• Most group-discussion participants stayed completely silent #expands (0.72) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 1879