I first heard of the concept of Pluralistic Ignorance last weekend. Wikipedia defines it as follows:
In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance is a process which involves several members of a group who think that they have different perceptions, beliefs, or attitudes from the rest of the group[1][2]. While they do not endorse the group norm, the dissenting persons behave like the other group members, because they think that the behaviour of the other group members shows that the opinion of the group is unanimous. In other words, because everyone who disagrees behaves as if he or she agrees, all dissenting members think that the norm is endorsed by every group member but themselves. This in turn reinforces their willingness to conform to the group norm rather than express their disagreement. Because of pluralistic ignorance, people may conform to the perceived consensual opinion of a group, instead of thinking and acting on their own perceptions.
It gives a name to a phenomena that I've observed and suspected, but not been able to verbalize.
I wonder whether the lack of widespread discussion of Land Value Taxation is an example of Pluralistic Ignorance: to the extent that people are familiar with the idea, and with its implications both as a fiscal measure and as a social reform, they embrace it. Indeed, the few who have found bases on which to criticize it generally end up demonstrating in their argument that there is some fundamental gap in their understanding, or that they are particularly devoted to some special interest.
He who sees the truth, let him proclaim it, without asking who is for it or who is against it. This is not radicalism in the bad sense which so many attach to the word. This is conservatism in the true sense.
When I first got interested in these ideas -- offline -- I started looking for others who had already embraced them, and expected that I'd find many others and a large movement out there. The internet was a lot younger then, and in the meantime I've come across many websites, blogs, discussion groups, etc., which clearly see LVT as the solution to one problem or another ... poverty, sprawl, unaffordable housing, economic injustice, low wages, privatization of the commons, wealth concentration (the list is longer than that) ... and I've come to know many of the people who are most serious about these ideas. But I don't yet see a large movement, and thus the concept of pluralistic ignorance becomes a possible explanation for part of why.
And yet in the places we hang out, there seems to be a lot of agreement these problems are in desperate need of solution, and that the "solutions" we as a society have tried so far have not been particularly successful. How many of us are simply assuming that others don't see the problems clearly, and avoid speaking up? Pluralistic Ignorance.
The Wikipedia article continues,
Pluralistic ignorance partially explains the bystander effect: the observation that people are more likely to intervene in an emergency situation when alone than when other persons are present. If people monitor the reactions of others in such a situation, they may conclude from the lack of initiative of others that other people think that it is not necessary to intervene. If everyone behaves in this way, no one may take any action, even though some people privately think that they should do something. On the other hand, if one person intervenes, others are more likely to follow and give assistance.
Some people think that pluralistic ignorance explains the happenings in the murder case of Kitty Genovese: about a dozen witnesses failed to help Genovese when she was stabbed to death in 1964. Others do not think that pluralistic ignorance was important in this case, because most of the witnesses only heard the murder (i.e. they were not eye witnesses) and were therefore perhaps unable to monitor the reactions of other people. Nevertheless, pluralistic ignorance explains the inaction of these witnesses, too, if at the time they were reasoning: "Since I can hear the what is happening, others must also hear it; if no one else is doing anything about it, then it must not be an emergency."
Comments