Has the spiral of silence theory affected this site in the last few years?

[Mike_Young]

I was reading an article on Pathological Narcissism  and much seemed to align with how we see golf courses:

THE ARTICLE STATES:

America suffers from a classic and well known phenomenon studied since 1974 known as the, “Spiral of Silence,” and this phenomenon has only been made worse by advancements in technology that amplify the social interactions between people, through for example, Facebook.

    The spiral of silence is a political science and mass communication theory propounded by the German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. Spiral of silence theory describes the process by which one opinion becomes dominant as those who perceive their opinion to be in the minority do not speak up because society threatens individuals with fear of isolation. The assessment of ones social environment may not always be correct with reality.

Last night, Facebook was all aflutter with comments lamenting the acquittal of George Zimmerman. Such was their emotional distress, that their profile pictures were soon changed to an obscure figure in a dark hoodie.

This wave of emotionally fueled and vacuous Facebook assaults on George Zimmerman was met with silence, the Spiral of Silence. Only those who were seeking out confirmation that George was a murderer, and those willing to provide it, and thus confirming themselves in the process, were publicly discussing the case. All those with an alternate opinion were not speaking up because, “society threatens individuals with fear of isolation,” and as social creatures, isolation is one of our greatest fears. This allows the sentimental narcissists to define the narrative and make the majority believe that the minority opinion represents everyone. This is why it is important for those of a diverging opinion to risk sharing it. You may be surprised to discover how many others agree with you, but were in silence.

These emotionally-based sentimentalists swim in an ocean of self-reinforcing group-think where how you feel about something is more important than spending the time and effort to apply rational cognitive energies using facts and common sense to draw a logical conclusion based on the available data. Humans, like the rest of the natural world from lightening to rivers, seek out the path of least resistance. Drawing conclusions on anything based on emotion is significantly easier than applying oneself to the task of mental calisthenics.

I THINK WE TREAT GCA THE SAME...

[Mac Plumart]

Because the site is made up of human beings, I'm sure it impacts our discussions.  But I think we've got some diverse opinions going.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Are you saying that those that don't fall into the "politically correct" category tend to remain silent ?

[Mike_Young]

Mac,
I don't know...I don't see many coming out and saying they love TF or RJ etc...and in the golf world there are plenty that do...I am quite certain there are many on this site that shy away from commenting on specific topics for fear of thinking some other dork knows more...

Pat,
Hmmmmm...I think so....

[Ed Brzezowski]

Did Elisabeth like Merion?  Just wondering since any topic with those  six letters  in it seem to disprove her theory .

[Steve Salmen]

I'm going to take the bait:

I think there are only 9 interesting holes on TOC: 6,7,11,12,13,14,15,16,17. The rest is rather boring.

[jeffwarne]

Many clubs are run by this theory

[JR Potts]

Mac,
I don't know...I don't see many coming out and saying they love TF or RJ etc...and in the golf world there are plenty that do...I am quite certain there are many on this site that shy away from commenting on specific topics for fear of thinking some other dork knows more...

Pat,
Hmmmmm...I think so....

I think a lot of the silence comes from the fact that group-think is so pervasive on this site that many times, it's not worth the effort and energy to write a alternate view, only to get bombarded by 12 self-congratulatory posts from the same cast of characters.  Unless you have half a day set aside to defend and respond, more often than not, it's not worth the trouble.

[Mike_Young]

Many clubs are run by this theory

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - well, let me face the spiral of silence head on and say, unequivocally, that I believe you are not the laid-back lunkhead you often appear to be!!  

But seriously: I think the sad part -- in areas/spheres of life more important than gca.com -- is not so much that society marginalizes us, but that we marginalize ourselves, often for fear of being laughed at or criticized; and that over time we can start to forget that we've done that to ourselves, and even forget that there was once a genuine and unique 'self' that was unafraid and full of promise. I think there is so much passion and original ideas and noble and courageous thoughts and potentially amazing discoveries/creations out there, all lying buried deep down in the hearts and minds of people who were  laughed at or criticized once too often, and who then marginalized themselves away.

Peter

[Mike_Young]

Mike - well, let me face the spiral of silence head on and say, unequivocally, that I believe you are not the laid-back lunkhead you often appear to be!!  

But seriously: I think the sad part -- in areas/spheres of life more important than gca.com -- is not so much that society marginalizes us, but that we marginalize ourselves, often for fear of being laughed at or criticized; and that over time we can start to forget that we've done that to ourselves, and even forget that there was once a genuine and unique 'self' that was unafraid and full of promise. I think there is so much passion and original ideas and noble and courageous thoughts and potentially amazing discoveries/creations out there, all lying buried deep down in the hearts and minds of people who were  laughed at or criticized once too often, and who then marginalized themselves away.

Peter

Peter,
Gee....I love that name "lunkhead"...
AND  agree with your second paragraph 100%...well said...

[Andy Troeger]

I think the biggest challenge for lurkers and occasional posters here is the sheer volume of posts that come from a certain small percentage of posters. Over time the names have changed, but there seems to have always been a smallish group that dominates through volume. If you can't post regularly (during the US workday), the discussion moves along and leaves you behind. I also find that if you disagree with those who can post regularly, it often isn't worth the argument because you lose based on sheer post volume (making it seem like more are against you than is really the case).

Now, some of those who post regularly do so very thoughtfully. This is not a criticism of those with high post counts. I don't see much positive or negative correlation between quantity and quality of posts. I do think it is difficult to post thoughtfully, however, unless one has the time to follow-up on a regular basis.

And for my personal situation, after 4,000 posts I can't think of much new material that would be worth posting unless someone starts bashing Golf Digest panelists or doesn't really understand the process!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think a lot of the silence comes from the fact that group-think is so pervasive on this site that many times, it's not worth the effort and energy to write a alternate view, only to get bombarded by 12 self-congratulatory posts from the same cast of characters.  Unless you have half a day set aside to defend and respond, more often than not, it's not worth the trouble.

Ahhhh, do you mean the quality of having the courage of your convictions ?  

[Matthew Essig]

I think the biggest challenge for lurkers and occasional posters here is the sheer volume of posts that come from a certain small percentage of posters. Over time the names have changed, but there seems to have always been a smallish group that dominates through volume. If you can't post regularly (during the US workday), the discussion moves along and leaves you behind. I also find that if you disagree with those who can post regularly, it often isn't worth the argument because you lose based on sheer post volume (making it seem like more are against you than is really the case).

Now, some of those who post regularly do so very thoughtfully. This is not a criticism of those with high post counts. I don't see much positive or negative correlation between quantity and quality of posts. I do think it is difficult to post thoughtfully, however, unless one has the time to follow-up on a regular basis.

This is up there in the most truthful posts I have read.

A huge +1

I think a lot of the silence comes from the fact that group-think is so pervasive on this site that many times, it's not worth the effort and energy to write a alternate view, only to get bombarded by 12 self-congratulatory posts from the same cast of characters.  Unless you have half a day set aside to defend and respond, more often than not, it's not worth the trouble.

It is not worth the trouble to defend or respond because, as Andy said, the volume of posts will consume your argument or leave your argument in the dust.

[Michael Whitaker]

Hmm... the "Silent Majority." Now where have I heard that before?

[Chip Gaskins]

Mac,
I don't know...I don't see many coming out and saying they love TF or RJ etc...and in the golf world there are plenty that do...I am quite certain there are many on this site that shy away from commenting on specific topics for fear of thinking some other dork knows more...

Pat,
Hmmmmm...I think so....

I think a lot of the silence comes from the fact that group-think is so pervasive on this site that many times, it's not worth the effort and energy to write a alternate view, only to get bombarded by 12 self-congratulatory posts from the same cast of characters.  Unless you have half a day set aside to defend and respond, more often than not, it's not worth the trouble.

hear, hear!

[Brian Finn]

JR and Andy are spot on.  

There are also strong elements of negative selection that compound the effect.  

Very interesting and insightful post, Mike. Thanks.

[John Kirk]

I dunno.

With respect to this paragraph:

"These emotionally-based sentimentalists swim in an ocean of self-reinforcing group-think where how you feel about something is more important than spending the time and effort to apply rational cognitive energies using facts and common sense to draw a logical conclusion based on the available data. Humans, like the rest of the natural world from lightening to rivers, seek out the path of least resistance. Drawing conclusions on anything based on emotion is significantly easier than applying oneself to the task of mental calisthenics."

Evaluating golf architecture is largely subjective, and therefore does not lend itself all that well to "logical conclusion".  I do have my own set of criteria to "logically" evaluate courses, and every now and then I shoot my mouth off and mention something about a course, usually something I've said before.

I've been a member of GCA for nine years, and after about five years, I had decided what I like and dislike.  I don't participate as much because I've said everything I wanted to say.  Every now and then I get a decent idea, but not often.

If you like Tom Fazio and Rees Jones courses, then say so and be prepared to say why.  I have specific reasons why I like or dislike golf courses.  Saying you will get drowned out by a cacophony of sycophants is a bit of a cop out.  You can always fall back on the logic of "I like it because I like it."

If the majority of posters are quiet, I think it is because many veterans have said what they wanted to say, and golf architecture is a finite subject we have thoroughly discussed.  As a result, there are fewer topics of interest.

If I had to cite another reason why GCA is slow, if it actually is, I would refer to it as "cyberbullying", which I don't think is the same as the "spiral of silence".

I don't like the example used in the original post.  On my Facebook and other sociopolitical discussion boards I follow, there were vocal advocates for both general views (guilty or not guilty) about Mr. Zimmerman.  Finally, in the five years I have been a member of Facebook, I have been distinctly less happy in life.  There's a pretty obvious correlation.  

[Scott Warren]

John Kirk,

If you like Tom Fazio and Rees Jones courses, then say so and be prepared to say why.

I agree, and have underlined what I think leads to some people claiming they've been shouted down by the masses when they profess a love for Fazio or Rees.

Everyone should absolutely feel comfortable stating their opinions and preferences, but you have to be willing to explain why you feel a certain way if you're challenged. That isn't bullying and it's not "shouting down".

Thomas Dai loves the 2010 course at Celtic Manor.

Chip Gaskins thinks the 3rd at National Golf Links isn't much good.

Sean Arble reckons Silloth is too short and easy.

Brian Phillips thinks Royal Sydney should be World Top 100 and NSWGC is a glorified goat track muni.

Michael Taylor was disappointed by NGLA and doesn't get the hype around Royal Melbourne.

There are plenty of examples of GCAers being willing to offer a dissenting opinion and stand behind it, but the above revelations understandably caused a bit of a stir when they were aired, either on this site or on the golf course between members of this site, and those who expressed them were asked to explain why they felt the way they do.

[Ben Sims]

There's a reason why Fox News garners such ludicrously high ratings compared to its competitors.  Validation of opinion is far easier and more gratifying than facts and thought.  There's comfort in the herd, especially when the herd continually moo's in unison on top of being closely spaced.

I had a recent experience where I innocuously--but honestly--opined on the new bunkering at Sewanee as overdone.  Specifically the bunker edges looked, well, not good.   Funny thing is that those same bunker edges have been done a lot over the past 10 years and I hadn't really reacted negatively until I saw the photos of Sewanee.  I don't know why I diverged from the herd, or felt the need to even address it.  But the invalidation of my own opinion followed swiftly, online and off.  I don't know why the opinion of a bunker edge meant so much.  Especially from someone 1) not in the business and 2) not likely to ever play Sewanee.  

After the first year to two on GCA.com, I felt it was disingenuous to bat my eyes.  But not doing so has cost me.  There's value in lockstep opinion and silver-tongued accolade.  Specifically on GCA.com, it brings access to many things that "normal" golfers don't have.  Not the least of which is golf courses themselves.  Access to a friends-group of higher than average socio-economic means comes to many here as a result of their opinions on golf architecture.  And the revolving door of characters with closely matched opinions continues.  

The older I get, the more I realize that most people don't want to hang out with people that make them think.  It's just not human nature for the majority.  I gravitate towards folks like Kirk, Mahaffey, Young and Warne precisely because they're conspicuous dissenters.  And in that, I find comfort.  

See, everyone likes their own herd.  

[Sean_A]

Ben

The herds have very similar stripes as they all belong to the Golfer Species.  The issue amongst the herds is a lack of personal knowledge.  Rather, because you express opinion Y you are assessed to have Y number of stripes.  You and those of your herd could express the same sentiment in person and probably not cause an issue (offense?).  Such is life in rough and tumble streets of cyber-communication.

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

Mike, a lot of self-selection goes on here.  GCA has enough of a minimalist-type bent, it doesn't draw so many RTJ/Fazio enthusiasts.    

I also point out, though, that the tastes on this site pretty well reflect those of the major golf mags, as shown in their ratings.  i.e. while not many Fazios or RTJs appear in the world top 100 lists, a whole lot of Doak, C&C, MacKenzie, Old Tom etc. courses do.  Without attempting a chicken/egg analysis, this site is tuned in to the 'experts,', such as they are.    

Ben, I'm sure you are partly right about Fox News.  But there's another reason as well.  Until Fox came along, the conservatives had nowhere to turn.  CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN are strongly liberal.  No surprise that a network taking the conservative view attracts more conservatives.

ETA: for those concerned about group think on this site, read John Percival's latest post in his Doonbeg thread.  He just played Lahinch, HATED it, and gives a whole bunch of reasons why.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ben Sims wrote:

"The older I get, the more I realize that most people don't want to hang out with people that make them think.

I would disagree with the above statement, and feel just the opposite.

I guess it depends upon the crowd you hang out with.

Me, I want to be stimulated and provoked by intelligent thought and the people responsible for same.

It's just not human nature for the majority.  


What do you base your conclusion on ?
Did you take a poll ?

I gravitate towards folks like Kirk, Mahaffey, Young and Warne precisely because they're conspicuous dissenters.  And in that, I find comfort.  
Dissenters or free thinkers ?
Like Fox News ?

[Mike_Young]

Ben,
Me a dissenter?  Come on.  I'm a realist in an idealistic business.  there's a big difference.  

As an example:  just take a minute and list all the "architects", "designers" "pro golfers" that you can list.  How many of those actually have an 18 hole course with their name on the scorecard?  I wager much less than half.  That's not a judgment of anyone but a measurable item.  
Just consider all of the associates over the last 25 years that have worked in the business for the large firms, yet no name on the scorecard.  And now, in today's environment there is no new work and we still see all of these "architects", "designers" "pro golfers".  I'm not saying any of us "architects", "designers" "pro golfers" are not qualified to do the work.  I'm saying there is no work for most.  Eventually guys will tire of their wife working while they "wait" for some promise of some developer to give them their next project and they will ease into another field.  Now is that an example of dissenting or keeping it "real"  
Fly safe dude...

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't think I'd be willing to believe much of what anti-Semites like Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann wrote. What I do believe is that the person or persons behind the "Angrywoodchuckblog", the place where Mike's article came from,  are maladjusted, anti social fringe dwellers who love using inflammatory subjects to try and drive wedges through the more stable portions of society for their own personal gain.

It's drivel, and "spending the time and effort to apply rational cognitive energies using facts and common sense to draw a logical conclusion based on the available data" reveals it as such.