You go around saying X. There are some people who agree with X and others who disagree. Those who agree with X don’t blink an eye when you say X. Those who disagree with X tell you X is wrong.
At some point you have to rethink whether you agree with X. You have a bunch of definitive signals against X but the signals in favor of X are hard to count. You have to count the number of times people didn’t say anything about X. You are naturally biased against X.
Eventually you change your mind and go around saying not-X. Repeat.
Cheap Talk 
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 7, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Lones Smith
If what you said “repeat” were forever true, then this individual’s beliefs would violate the martingale convergence theorem. I presume that his inferential conclusion is not so clear-cut as you muse.
February 7, 2011 at 10:46 pm
jeff
Martingale shmartingale
February 8, 2011 at 12:35 am
Lones Smith
Technically, only horses should be “naysayers” about martingales…
February 8, 2011 at 6:56 am
Tomasz
Are all the other people doing the same thing? Will this amplify your effect? Depends how staggered they are, no?
February 8, 2011 at 8:44 am
Anshuman
Wait, when the guy says Not-X and finds the initially vocal opponents of X silent and also finds the initially silent ones now vocal opponents of Not-X, wouldn’t he conclude that only those opposing an idea are vocal and will know what percentage of people support what idea, pick a side and end the process?
February 8, 2011 at 10:28 am
twicker
Assuming that he can accurately remember how many of each said what. Being a psych-oriented person, I have no such faith in the accuracy of human memory, and I suspect that Jeff’s correct that it will be heavily biased in favor of paying attention to recent naysayers and discounting (or simply forgetting) previous naysayers.
February 8, 2011 at 10:37 am
twicker
Note that this assumes that you’re interacting with social groups that include fair numbers of people on both sides of the issue, and that the issue is emotionally unimportant enough that those in favor of X will keep quiet. For emotionally important issues, the people in favor of X will express that support when another person expresses support, as a means of promoting X. Likewise, they’ll move towards spending more time with the “intelligent, moral” people (i.e., the “HECK YES X!” crowd) and spend less time with the “stupid, evil” people (i.e., the “X SUCKS!” crowd). Therefore, the view that X is the Truth, the Light, and the Way will be strengthened and reinforced, and Mr. Wishy-Washy will become Mr. Adamant.
So – you’re absolutely right, with a few boundaries. Interestingly (to me), you’d *really* see this effect in play in a business, where the “YAY X!” and “X SUCKS!” crowds will, of necessity, work together and interact a lot. So – your insight means that decisions to change/etc. become much more difficult the more people are interconnected with and reliant on members of both camps, possibly leading to organizational paralysis.
February 8, 2011 at 3:37 pm
WillJ
Seems to me that the exact opposite is the case.
Crazy man on the street: I think what we should do is just nuke the entire Middle East…
Sane person he’s talking to: Yeah, totally… [inside the sane person’s head: What the hell is wrong with this guy?]
And yes, I realize the irony of me telling you I think you’re wrong about this.