They show where the nation has been growing since the April Census headcount, a period that follows the end of the recession and includes three-fourths of the Obama presidency. They show what states Americans have been moving in and out of, and what states have attracted the most immigrants. They're worth looking at, because the cold precision of the numbers provides clues to the warm impulses of human hearts, where people choose to pursue dreams or escape nightmares.
Slow-motion video makes juries more likely to convict One source of problems in group decisions is that many deliberating groups end up adopting a more extreme version of the position toward which they tended before deliberation began.
The problem is especially severe for groups of like-minded people, who typically get more extreme as a result of deliberation. Group polarization has been found in hundreds of studies involving more than a dozen countries, including the United States, France, Afghanistan, and Germany.
For example, group members of the same nationality who start out by disapproving of the US, and are suspicious of its intentions, will end up with greater disapproval and suspicion Polarization and cultuarl divison they exchange points of view.
Indeed, there is specific evidence of the latter phenomenon among citizens of France. And, we are confident the same phenomenon would be observed if we ran the mirror-image study in the US and asked Americans to evaluate the French.
Risky shifts, cautious shifts The original experiments on the effects of deliberation are especially relevant to businesses and governments alike. The studies involved risk-taking behavior, with a clear finding that people initially inclined to take risks become even more risky after they deliberate with one another.
If group members begin with some willingness to engage in risky behavior, groups will engage in more of that behavior as a result of group discussion. Risky decisions included taking a new job, investing in a foreign country, escaping from a prisoner-of-war camp, or running for political office.
With respect to many such decisions, members of deliberating groups become significantly more risk-seeking after a brief period of exchanging views.
On the basis of this early evidence, the prevailing wisdom was that deliberation produced a systematic risky shift. But later studies drew this conclusion into question—and also created a puzzle.
On many of the same questions on which Americans displayed a shift toward risk, Taiwanese participants showed a shift toward caution. Deliberation led citizens of Taiwan to become a lot less risk inclined than they were before they started to talk.
And it turned out that among American participants, deliberation sometimes produced a cautious shift, as risk-averse people became more averse to certain risks after they talked with one another, depending on the action they were contemplating. The principal examples of cautious shifts were decisions about whether to marry and whether to board a plane despite severe abdominal pain that would possibly require medical attention.
In these cases, the members of deliberating groups, even in the US, shifted not toward risk, but toward greater caution. So much for the idea of a consistent one-directional risky shift! What explains these unruly findings? A straightforward interpretation reconciles them: When group members are initially disposed toward risk-taking, a risky shift is likely.
Where members are initially disposed toward caution, a cautious shift is likely. Thus, for example, the striking difference between American and Taiwanese subjects is a product not of cultural habits or a different effect from group deliberation, but of a simple difference in where group members started—more precisely, in the predeliberation medians of the different groups on the key questions.
Whereas the Americans started out risk seeking, the Taiwanese started out risk averse, and that simple fact explained the different directions of the two shifts. The risky shift and the cautious shift are both subsumed under a single rubric: In a finding of special importance for business, group polarization occurs both for matters of fact and for issues of value.
Suppose that the question is whether a product will sell a certain number of units in Europe in the next year. If so, group polarization will not be easy to test, simply because the answer is either yes or no, and it is not simple to demonstrate a shift to greater extremism in yes-or-no answers.
If the predeliberation median is six, the group judgment will usually be seven; if the predeliberation median is three, the group judgment will usually be two. Note here that even US federal judges—experts in the law, who are supposedly neutral—are highly susceptible to group polarization.
A past study demonstrates both Democratic and Republican appointees showed far more ideological voting patterns when sitting with other judges appointed by a president who shared the same political party.
On a solely Democratic three-judge panel, all three appointees showed very liberal voting patterns in cases involving discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation, environmental protection, and the rights of workers—far more liberal patterns than they showed when at least one Republican appointee was on the panel.
The pattern was identical for Republican appointees, who showed highly conservative voting patterns on all-Republican panels. You can think of three-judge panels as teams: If you want to know how an appellate judge will vote in an ideologically contested case, you might want to find out whether she was appointed by a Republican president or a Democratic president.
Who appointed the other two judges on the panel? Juries display group polarization as well. In particular, their punitive-damage awards tend to be far higher than the preferred award of the median member, before deliberation.
The result of jury deliberation is to produce an increase in extremism, in the form of higher awards. There is a lesson here about punishment judgments in general.Jan 12, · Census Shows Increasing Cultural Division and Political Polarization Michael Barone Jan 12, The Census Bureau has delivered its annual Christmas gift to demographic junkies: its estimates of the populations of the 50 states and the District of Columbia for mid Polarization-division multiplexing (PDM) is a physical layer method for multiplexing signals carried on electromagnetic waves, allowing two channels of information to be transmitted on the same carrier frequency by using waves of two orthogonal polarization states.
A two-step cell polarization in algal zygotes Date: January 23, Source: Ghent University Summary: Developmental biology is the field of biology that studies the processes by which. Jan 21, · Polarization-division multiple access (PDMA) is a channel access method used in some cellular networks.
Separate antennas are used in this type, each with different polarization and followed by separate receivers, allowing simultaneous regional access of satellites.
Polarization is an evaluative mindset that views cultural differences from an “us versus them” perspective. Polarization can take the form of Defense (“My cultural practices are superior to other cultural practices”) or Reversal (“Other cultures are better than mine”).
Polarization: One reason groups fail. Reid Hastie, Cass R. Sunstein | Jul 21, the striking difference between American and Taiwanese subjects is a product not of cultural habits or a different effect from group deliberation, but of a simple difference in where group members started—more precisely, in the predeliberation medians of the.