Contemporary Social Problems Exam 1 Study Guide

What are the 4Cs of Civil Discourse

• Be curious - reserve judgement until you understand, assume you have something to learn

• Be charitable- assume others have good intentions, show empathy by recognizing others have different lived experiences

• Be conscientious- reason responsibly when making/evaluating arguments

• Be constructive- stay focused and remember the goal is to foster greater understanding

What is political polarization?

Political distance between opponents and the erasure of common ground leaving no room for compromise; ideological distance between platforms

What is belief polarization?

The idea that individuals only talk to others who are likeminded/share fundamental commitments

How does belief polarization occur via shift in degree?

Someone shifts their extremity of belief based on those who surround them

How does belief polarization occur via shift in content?

Someone shifts the content/foundation of their belief to a more superior justification learned by a peer

How does belief polarization occurs via a shift in your overall commitment to your perspective?

When surrounded by information someone probably feels more extreme and therefore more committed to their perspective * (CHECK)

What is the informational account of the causation of beliefs shifting to extremity?

the exposure to affirming arguments that results from likeminded discussion can contribute to the polarization effect

What is the social comparison account of the causation of beliefs shifting to extremity?

the theory that belief polarization is driven by social dynamics, more specifically, in-group comparisons.

Why does the informational account not work?

Because people are already within the groups that they agree with, and they may hear evidence and think of it differently

Why does the social comparison account not account for belief polarization?

The social comparison account of group polarization argues that people shift their opinions toward a more extreme position because they want to fit in with, or distinguish themselves positively from, other group members, their belief is not definitely shifting toward extremity

What is the corroboration account

The corroboration account is an explanation for group polarization that focuses on how people gain confidence in their existing beliefs when they discover that other people independently agree with them.

What is the argument for the claim that polarization is bad for democracy

If democracy is built on disputing over the deployment of political power, this requires citizens to recognize the political equality of who they recognize as opponent. Democracy can’t exist if we only believe our own side.

What is an epistemic bubble?

An informational network where relevant voices have been excluded by omission, this can be purposeful or inadvertently

What is an echo chamber?

A social structure from which other relevant voices have been actively discredited

Between echo chamber and epistemic bubble, which is harder to escape and why?

The echo chamber is harder to escape, it’s easy to let the other side into the epistemic bubble, the echo chamber is essentially letting these people in but refusing to believe anything they say, because a leader may claim the source is evil / distrustful.

How to escape an echo chamber?

The order of evidence presented can be the simple solution, if an environment is followed by an echo chamber the teenager will most likely see the problem. Otherwise, escape can be very difficult.

What is the cartesian epistemic reboot?

A system reset, distrust all except of what we are certain.

What is the social epistemic reboot?

To escape echo chamber, a member must temporarily suspend all beliefs, and start from scratch, and begin afresh socially, considering all info with an equanimity.

Why survey data is not a good guide to levels of disagreement?

1) Increasingly polarized attitudes rather than issues themselves

2) Survey data exaggerates disagreement

3) Voters claim to have policy convictions when they really don’t gaf

Why people may not have stable political beliefs

They identify with where they think their social group would go (e.g someone who is lgbtq thinking lgbtqs would generally lean more democratic) (CHECK)

What is affective polarization

Affective polarization is the tendency for people from different political or social groups to dislike, distrust, or even fear one another, regardless of their specific policy disagreements.

What is cheerleading/expressive responding

Misreporting beliefs to express an attitude, where people A) know the truth and tend to cheerlead because there’s no gain from accuracy, or B) they offer the people-pleaser option

What is the folk theory of democracy

Voters choose party aligned most w/ their policy interests

What is the social identity/realist theory of democracy

Voters choose political parties to align themselves w/ a social group, because their kind of person is most likely to align w/ that party

What is viewpoint neutrality?

Any restriction on speech ought to be viewpoint neutral, meaning they can’t discriminate on content of speech or any particular view.

Why is viewpoint neutrality neccessary?

If we start to allow restriction based on content we lose the idea of free speech (governments can start to decide what ideas are/aren’t allowed)

What are harm based justifications for regulating speech

Allows for the regulation of certain speech on the basis that is causes

serious psychological harm

Why does Altman think harm based justifications for regulating speech fail?

We should regulate certain speech acts that wrong people (hate speech),

but because they cause psychological damage. Rather we can identify

how hate speech is wrong in a way that is more compatible with

liberalism

What is the difference between perlocutionary effect and illocutionary force 

Perlocutionary effects: causal effects on the hearer (e.g. infuriating her,

persuading her, frightening her)

Illocutionary force: the kind of speech act one is performing when making an

utterance (e.g. advising, warning, stating, claiming, etc.

Why Altman thinks regulating hate speech along these lines (perlocutionary effect and illocutionary force ) is okay?

Because it is a speech act that involves performing a certain kind of

illocutionary act, namely, the act of treating someone as a subordinate

Treating someone as a subordinate = treating someone as if their

interests are intrinsically less important and their lives intrinsically less

valuable

Slurs are terms “whose principal purpose is precisely to treat” others as

“having inferior moral standing”

Asserting or arguing for racist, homophobic, etc. views are not wrongful

hate speech on Altman’s view