Birds of a feather
One of the most common arguments I hear from readers is "Everyone I talk to agrees with me." It doesn't matter if the person is calling about our doing something different on the front page, changing a columnist, reducing the stocks or replacing a comic strip. I also get its cousin: "No one I talk to likes it."
I've never understood how anyone could believe that to be true. But I've been wrong. Here's the explanation.
Homophily may help explain some of the bitter partisanship of our times -- when your friends are drawn exclusively from one half of the electorate, it is not surprising that you will find the views of the other half inexplicable.
"I often hear people say with absolute certainty that whoever they are in favor of is obviously going to do well because they haven't talked to 'anyone' who supports the other person" in the election, said Lynn Smith-Lovin, a Duke University sociologist who has studied homophily. She rolled her eyes and said, "Oh yeah, sure! That is a good argument."
Smith-Lovin's research, for example, shows that homophily is on the rise in the United States on nearly every dimension of social identity. Ever larger numbers of people seem to be sealing themselves off in worlds where everyone thinks the way they do. No Walter Cronkite figure unites audiences today, the sociologist noted. We can now choose cable stations, magazines and blogs that see the world exactly as we do. If the research on homophily is right, those heavily e-mailed partisan screeds from the op-ed pages are largely talking to those who agree with those points of view to begin with.
I can't say "everyone I talk to feels the same way" about anything, unless I just don't talk to anyone. But I often talk to people who believe their view is the only view so this rings true to me.
One of the benefits of a geographic-based blogging community (as opposed to a subject-based one) is that there is wide diversity of opinion on virtually every topic. It's tough to be close-minded because people challenge you. And vice versa. Maybe that's one of the reasons I'm in this business.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Your post reminds me of Pauline Kael's reported comment on the 1972 Richard Nixon presidential victory....
"How can that be?" she supposedly said. "No one I know voted for Nixon."
Posted on October 20, 2006 6:07 PM
Great post John, and nice insight on that benefit of a local blog community. It's scary to think that homophily is actually on the rise - we're way too divided as it is, in my opinion.
Posted on October 20, 2006 9:14 PM
Personally, I refuse to hold a civil conversation with those who don't agree with me.
:)
Posted on October 21, 2006 9:13 AM
Actually, Bubba, Pauline Kael probably never said that. Read this. But you're right on.
And I'm please to read, jaycee, that we agree on something. :)
Posted on October 21, 2006 10:46 AM
Apparently Kael refused to comment when asked about what she actually might have said.
However, NYT attributed this to Kael, regarding the "quote":
"I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them."
Instead of naivete, the point becomes arrogance.
Posted on October 21, 2006 5:07 PM
It's pretty insular. I live in a special world, too, but it's not much based on the politics of the people I'm with.
Posted on October 21, 2006 6:12 PM
The reason why you're in a business comprised of 70+% self-described liberals? Sorry, couldn't resist.
Given that most of my friends (including my wife) are whack-job leftists, I can definitely see the desirability of homophila. It's tiring having to explain to everyone why they're wrong all the time.
Posted on October 22, 2006 12:53 AM