What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Societies Need Dissent
In this timely book, Cass R. Sunstein shows that organizations and nations are far more likely to prosper if they welcome dissent and promote openness. Attacking "political correctness" in all forms, Sunstein demonstrates that corporations, legislatures, even presidents are likely to blunder if they do not cultivate a culture of candor and disclosure. He shows that unjustified extremism, including violence and terrorism, often results from failure to tolerate dissenting views. The tragedy is that blunders and cruelties could be avoided if people spoke out.
Sunstein casts new light on freedom of speech, showing that a free society not only forbids censorship but also provides public spaces for dissenters to expose widely held myths and pervasive injustices. He provides evidence about the effects of conformity and dissent on the federal courts. The evidence shows not only that Republican appointees vote differently from Democratic appointees but also that both Republican and Democratic judges are likely to go to extremes if unchecked by opposing views. Understanding the need for dissent illuminates countless social debates, including those over affirmative action in higher education, because diversity is indispensable to learning.
Dissenters are often portrayed as selfish and disloyal, but Sunstein shows that those who reject pressures imposed by others perform valuable social functions, often at their own expense. This is true for dissenters in boardrooms, churches, unions, and academia. It is true for dissenters in the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court. And it is true during times of war and peace.
Sunstein casts new light on freedom of speech, showing that a free society not only forbids censorship but also provides public spaces for dissenters to expose widely held myths and pervasive injustices. He provides evidence about the effects of conformity and dissent on the federal courts. The evidence shows not only that Republican appointees vote differently from Democratic appointees but also that both Republican and Democratic judges are likely to go to extremes if unchecked by opposing views. Understanding the need for dissent illuminates countless social debates, including those over affirmative action in higher education, because diversity is indispensable to learning.
Dissenters are often portrayed as selfish and disloyal, but Sunstein shows that those who reject pressures imposed by others perform valuable social functions, often at their own expense. This is true for dissenters in boardrooms, churches, unions, and academia. It is true for dissenters in the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court. And it is true during times of war and peace.
256 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
9 people are currently reading
545 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
February 4, 2014
I may be overly critical in my rating.
The book starts out well and with good intentions, but the author's background is in law and not in psychology, and my impression is that he lacks perspective in game-theory to successfully explain the relevance and meaning of some of the consensus-dissent experiments he refers to.
Also I'm biased in that I am getting a conservative vibe from the way he speaks about conservative dissent not being welcome on campuses. I find that irrelevant and biased, given that I believe the dissent he speaks of is unreasonable.
What's good is that it talks about cognitive psychology effects such as cascades, meaning an early consensus quickly becomes too costly or risky to challenge.
It also talks about how usefull it is to have a mix of dissenting views in an organisation, and how different types of dissent are either usefull or just contrarian.
It also makes an attempt at talking about at which points in a decision-making process dissent is usefull and when it is simply polarizing.
I suppose from an objective point of view, I ought to have given it a three, but compared to say the book "Super-cooperators", it's more of a light-weight.
I found myself rushing through the last quarter just to finish it, and I think I ought to read it again later, making notes as I go to keep track.
Overall I can recommend it if you don't have a large backlog of books to read.
The book starts out well and with good intentions, but the author's background is in law and not in psychology, and my impression is that he lacks perspective in game-theory to successfully explain the relevance and meaning of some of the consensus-dissent experiments he refers to.
Also I'm biased in that I am getting a conservative vibe from the way he speaks about conservative dissent not being welcome on campuses. I find that irrelevant and biased, given that I believe the dissent he speaks of is unreasonable.
What's good is that it talks about cognitive psychology effects such as cascades, meaning an early consensus quickly becomes too costly or risky to challenge.
It also talks about how usefull it is to have a mix of dissenting views in an organisation, and how different types of dissent are either usefull or just contrarian.
It also makes an attempt at talking about at which points in a decision-making process dissent is usefull and when it is simply polarizing.
I suppose from an objective point of view, I ought to have given it a three, but compared to say the book "Super-cooperators", it's more of a light-weight.
I found myself rushing through the last quarter just to finish it, and I think I ought to read it again later, making notes as I go to keep track.
Overall I can recommend it if you don't have a large backlog of books to read.
February 18, 2023
Overview:
Decisions made by people, inform others what to do. Conformity has advantages, but also consequences. Conformity can signal good choices, with positive social feedback, while nonconformity can be punished. Those who dissent from accepted opinions and make different decisions take a risk that they will be socially stigmatized, lack financial opportunities, or even death. There are consequences to the individual for nonconformity, but there are consequences to society for conformity. The danger of conformity is depriving the society of valuable information, for conformity can prevent the individual from sharing their information and believes. Without the information, society and individuals have increased potential to make wrong decisions with undesirable outcomes. By rejecting pressure to conform, those who dissent take a risk in providing the potentially needed information.
Conformists free ride on the information of others, without adding their own information. While dissenters provide information in which the community benefits. Dissent is not always helpful, for dissenters can speak nonsense, or even take people in bad directions. Dissent is less needed when the conformists are making correct choices. But under uncertainty about the appropriateness of decisions and their potential outcomes, a group’s influencing power can prevent productive disagreement.
Conformity and Dissent:
Even those who consider themselves independent and show independence, are influenced by the beliefs and decisions of others. Individual beliefs and behavior are influenced by other people’s decisions, and for want of social approval. Conformity can be an aid to decision making. Lacking information on decisions, the decisions others make provides information on what to do. That is why people follow the crowd. That is why people pay attention to the decision of those they trust. With different groups, coming up with different behaviors and beliefs, because each used the decision of someone else to make their own decisions.
As more people believe something as true, there is more reason to believe it. Much of individual’s thought comes from what others thought and did, rather than tacit knowledge of the topic. Although not all views are held equally, for some are trusted more such as those in authority or with special expertise. If others seem to agree on something, there is social pressure not to disagree with them, at least in public. Wanting to be accepted into a group and have social approval, leads to a conformity that discourages conflict and disagreement that prevents the disclosure of information. Lack of information that leads to poorer group performance.
Conformity tends to increase with difficult tasks. Difficult tasks contain more uncertainty. Therefore, people defer their thoughts to others who appear to be more reliable sources of information.
Even with extremely obvious solution, in experiments, people choose to conform to the claims of others about the solution. Peer pressure can induce knowledge falsification, in which public statements misrepresent what the people actual information. Deferring to the crowd perpetuates group errors.
Widespread conformity is a problem, for it deprives the public of valuable information. Conformists not only follow others, but also silence themselves. They do not disclose knowledge that might benefit others. Conformity can prevent people from acknowledging what they see. Perpetuating terrible acts, because of their silence.
Few people might not speak out against a dominant view that is false but thought to be true, because they might not correct the dominant view while risking reputational damage. Although, even a single dissenter can dramatically alter decision making for a group. Reducing conformity and errors.
Conformist tend to be thought of as favoring social cohesion. Dissenters tend to be thought of as being selfish individuals. Although in reality, dissenters provide valuable information for the public, while conformists protect themselves. Those who dissent take various personal risks, sometimes even risking their lives. Dissenters can have valuable information, but might not voice the information due to lack of incentives for the dissenter, or because of potential repercussions. Dissenters do need to be rewarded for them to voice their information.
Groups that prioritize social cohesion over valuable discussions with dissent, have worse performance. To create quality outcomes, a culture needs to be developed in which disagreement is welcomed without punishing dissenters. A method for doing that is with anonymous sources of information.
Contrarians are not meant to be celebrated. They are rewarded not for providing appropriate information, but for simply disagreeing. There is more to dissent than just a willingness to disagree.
Social Cascades:
Social cascades start with few people’s behavior which causes others to follow their behavior. Other follow because they believe the behavior is appropriate, or want social approval. As more and more people follow the behavior, they no longer rely on their private information, and do not share information with the group. Lack of information that can lead to catastrophe.
Within an information cascade, people stop replying on their private information at some point. They rely on signals sent by others. Following those that are following others, yields no new information. Without private information, participation in a cascade is reasonable. Benefiting the individual when following others. People might not reveal appropriate information because they can fear that the information can either hurt the group’s internal or public situation, or might even help adversaries. Disclosing information can hurt others, such as by sending the wrong signals.
Cascades occur when deferring to the information of others, when predecessors have expert knowledge, and when individuals are rewarded for conforming rather than correct decisions. Cascades can be reduced when people are rewarded for correct group majorities rather than individual decisions.
Information cascades can be broken by those with enough private information to reject the accumulated wisdom of others. But even experts can fall into information cascades. More informed people rely less on other peoples’ signals, and can influence other more.
Within a reputational cascade, people withhold appropriate information to maintain a favorable opinion from others. Individuals silence themselves to prevent the disapproval of others even though the private information held is more appropriate. Self-censorship is a social loss.
Civil liberties such as freedom of speech, insulate people from pressure to conform. To protect private and public rights from self-silencing. Free speech prevents government from punishing those who do not accept popular opinions. A crucial protection that provides a monitoring method on leaders by the citizens. That are rare cases for legitimate reasons for restricting free speech, when claims can lead to imminent lawless action intent on hurting others.
Conformity coming from good decisions reduces costs of decision making without costly errors. With high costs to errors, more dissent is needed to provide the diverse information needed to reduce the errors. There are various ways groups can be diverse, and have conflicts. Not all of them promote better performance. Social ties are weaker with dissent. Disapproving of other group members can lead to lower productivity. Dissenters can have wrong information, and create conformity pressures of their own which can lead to bad information cascades. Appropriate group dynamics needs to manage conformity and dissent.
Polarization:
With group polarization, group decisions tend to become more extreme after discussion. Decisions become amplified in magnitude within group polarization.
Having dissent corroborated provides validation and self-confidence. Unanimous confirmation within those who think alike, gives them more confidence in their views which promotes extremism.
Laws and Compliance:
While some laws rarely violated, others are widely disobeyed. Some laws are not violated, even though violating the law would not be visible or known to others. Deterred by the potential unpleasant encounters with strangers. Alternatively, unfair law might be complied with for social approval.
Laws can be complied with simply by them being made public, rather than through enforcement of laws through punishment of violations. The expressive function of the law enables people to find out what to do, and that others are complying with the law. Compliance can come about though reminders of the law, that many others are complying with the law. The more visible violations of the law, the more compliance there is with the law, to prevent the wrath of others.
The expressive power of the law depends on whether the law is perceived to be a good source of information about behavior, or what others think about the appropriate behavior. Laws need to reflect citizen’s values to be legitimate. Without that legitimacy, the laws are going to be difficult to enforce. Arbitrarily imposed laws by self-appointed elite, such as dictatorships, signal no information about behavior and must be enforced through terror.
People consider six factors about laws which are the likelihood of enforcement, severity of punishment, reputational costs of violations, reputational benefits of violations, intrinsic benefits of compliance, and intrinsic costs of compliance.
Caveats?
The book focuses on the consequences of conformity. The author acknowledges that dissenters are not always beneficial and can lead groups into terrible directions. But there is very little information on how to recognize and prevent inappropriate dissent.
Decisions made by people, inform others what to do. Conformity has advantages, but also consequences. Conformity can signal good choices, with positive social feedback, while nonconformity can be punished. Those who dissent from accepted opinions and make different decisions take a risk that they will be socially stigmatized, lack financial opportunities, or even death. There are consequences to the individual for nonconformity, but there are consequences to society for conformity. The danger of conformity is depriving the society of valuable information, for conformity can prevent the individual from sharing their information and believes. Without the information, society and individuals have increased potential to make wrong decisions with undesirable outcomes. By rejecting pressure to conform, those who dissent take a risk in providing the potentially needed information.
Conformists free ride on the information of others, without adding their own information. While dissenters provide information in which the community benefits. Dissent is not always helpful, for dissenters can speak nonsense, or even take people in bad directions. Dissent is less needed when the conformists are making correct choices. But under uncertainty about the appropriateness of decisions and their potential outcomes, a group’s influencing power can prevent productive disagreement.
Conformity and Dissent:
Even those who consider themselves independent and show independence, are influenced by the beliefs and decisions of others. Individual beliefs and behavior are influenced by other people’s decisions, and for want of social approval. Conformity can be an aid to decision making. Lacking information on decisions, the decisions others make provides information on what to do. That is why people follow the crowd. That is why people pay attention to the decision of those they trust. With different groups, coming up with different behaviors and beliefs, because each used the decision of someone else to make their own decisions.
As more people believe something as true, there is more reason to believe it. Much of individual’s thought comes from what others thought and did, rather than tacit knowledge of the topic. Although not all views are held equally, for some are trusted more such as those in authority or with special expertise. If others seem to agree on something, there is social pressure not to disagree with them, at least in public. Wanting to be accepted into a group and have social approval, leads to a conformity that discourages conflict and disagreement that prevents the disclosure of information. Lack of information that leads to poorer group performance.
Conformity tends to increase with difficult tasks. Difficult tasks contain more uncertainty. Therefore, people defer their thoughts to others who appear to be more reliable sources of information.
Even with extremely obvious solution, in experiments, people choose to conform to the claims of others about the solution. Peer pressure can induce knowledge falsification, in which public statements misrepresent what the people actual information. Deferring to the crowd perpetuates group errors.
Widespread conformity is a problem, for it deprives the public of valuable information. Conformists not only follow others, but also silence themselves. They do not disclose knowledge that might benefit others. Conformity can prevent people from acknowledging what they see. Perpetuating terrible acts, because of their silence.
Few people might not speak out against a dominant view that is false but thought to be true, because they might not correct the dominant view while risking reputational damage. Although, even a single dissenter can dramatically alter decision making for a group. Reducing conformity and errors.
Conformist tend to be thought of as favoring social cohesion. Dissenters tend to be thought of as being selfish individuals. Although in reality, dissenters provide valuable information for the public, while conformists protect themselves. Those who dissent take various personal risks, sometimes even risking their lives. Dissenters can have valuable information, but might not voice the information due to lack of incentives for the dissenter, or because of potential repercussions. Dissenters do need to be rewarded for them to voice their information.
Groups that prioritize social cohesion over valuable discussions with dissent, have worse performance. To create quality outcomes, a culture needs to be developed in which disagreement is welcomed without punishing dissenters. A method for doing that is with anonymous sources of information.
Contrarians are not meant to be celebrated. They are rewarded not for providing appropriate information, but for simply disagreeing. There is more to dissent than just a willingness to disagree.
Social Cascades:
Social cascades start with few people’s behavior which causes others to follow their behavior. Other follow because they believe the behavior is appropriate, or want social approval. As more and more people follow the behavior, they no longer rely on their private information, and do not share information with the group. Lack of information that can lead to catastrophe.
Within an information cascade, people stop replying on their private information at some point. They rely on signals sent by others. Following those that are following others, yields no new information. Without private information, participation in a cascade is reasonable. Benefiting the individual when following others. People might not reveal appropriate information because they can fear that the information can either hurt the group’s internal or public situation, or might even help adversaries. Disclosing information can hurt others, such as by sending the wrong signals.
Cascades occur when deferring to the information of others, when predecessors have expert knowledge, and when individuals are rewarded for conforming rather than correct decisions. Cascades can be reduced when people are rewarded for correct group majorities rather than individual decisions.
Information cascades can be broken by those with enough private information to reject the accumulated wisdom of others. But even experts can fall into information cascades. More informed people rely less on other peoples’ signals, and can influence other more.
Within a reputational cascade, people withhold appropriate information to maintain a favorable opinion from others. Individuals silence themselves to prevent the disapproval of others even though the private information held is more appropriate. Self-censorship is a social loss.
Civil liberties such as freedom of speech, insulate people from pressure to conform. To protect private and public rights from self-silencing. Free speech prevents government from punishing those who do not accept popular opinions. A crucial protection that provides a monitoring method on leaders by the citizens. That are rare cases for legitimate reasons for restricting free speech, when claims can lead to imminent lawless action intent on hurting others.
Conformity coming from good decisions reduces costs of decision making without costly errors. With high costs to errors, more dissent is needed to provide the diverse information needed to reduce the errors. There are various ways groups can be diverse, and have conflicts. Not all of them promote better performance. Social ties are weaker with dissent. Disapproving of other group members can lead to lower productivity. Dissenters can have wrong information, and create conformity pressures of their own which can lead to bad information cascades. Appropriate group dynamics needs to manage conformity and dissent.
Polarization:
With group polarization, group decisions tend to become more extreme after discussion. Decisions become amplified in magnitude within group polarization.
Having dissent corroborated provides validation and self-confidence. Unanimous confirmation within those who think alike, gives them more confidence in their views which promotes extremism.
Laws and Compliance:
While some laws rarely violated, others are widely disobeyed. Some laws are not violated, even though violating the law would not be visible or known to others. Deterred by the potential unpleasant encounters with strangers. Alternatively, unfair law might be complied with for social approval.
Laws can be complied with simply by them being made public, rather than through enforcement of laws through punishment of violations. The expressive function of the law enables people to find out what to do, and that others are complying with the law. Compliance can come about though reminders of the law, that many others are complying with the law. The more visible violations of the law, the more compliance there is with the law, to prevent the wrath of others.
The expressive power of the law depends on whether the law is perceived to be a good source of information about behavior, or what others think about the appropriate behavior. Laws need to reflect citizen’s values to be legitimate. Without that legitimacy, the laws are going to be difficult to enforce. Arbitrarily imposed laws by self-appointed elite, such as dictatorships, signal no information about behavior and must be enforced through terror.
People consider six factors about laws which are the likelihood of enforcement, severity of punishment, reputational costs of violations, reputational benefits of violations, intrinsic benefits of compliance, and intrinsic costs of compliance.
Caveats?
The book focuses on the consequences of conformity. The author acknowledges that dissenters are not always beneficial and can lead groups into terrible directions. But there is very little information on how to recognize and prevent inappropriate dissent.
June 9, 2014
I think this book is brilliant. It's clear enough that the layperson can understand some challenging statistical and psycho-social research; Sunstein's argument is pretty sound (and based a bit on the work of Daniel Kahneman, whose work I also appreciate). I haven't always agreed with Sunstein's opinions over the years; but he does his homework as far as research goes, and his logic is generally quite sound. This book makes a strong argument for the value of and need for freedom of expression in any society that wishes to sustain itself.
More people should read it. College professors, anyone who teaches rhetoric or social history or management of people or psychology or law...get your students to read this book.
More people should read it. College professors, anyone who teaches rhetoric or social history or management of people or psychology or law...get your students to read this book.
February 20, 2014
As someone currently attending law school, Cass Sunstein is a name that has become very familiar to me over the past three years. However, graduate school was not where I first encountered the author. My sophomore year of college, I picked up this book in my school's library, flipped through a few pages, and was impressed enough to buy my own copy. Based on the Holmes Lectures given at Harvard, Mr. Sunstein has a crafted a book that takes note that what are currently unpopular opinions often become future gospel. Because societies that fail to adapt naturally stagnate, Western civilization has often encouraged (and unfortunately also punished) people willing to think outside the box. This book is skillfully argues why that encouragement is a good thing. Although at times Mr. Sunstein can wade a bit too far into the weeds of statistics and abstract theory, he successfully avoids the jargon that makes so many law review articles unreadable. Whether a lawyer or a layman, if you have a passion for free speech, this might be the book for you.
January 9, 2016
This book came highly recommended in one of our group discussions in Melbourne University with a practising lawyer from New Zealand while he was sharing with us his experiences of defending activists and protesters in his country. It is a very stimulating book and I would recommend this book to anyone wanting to understand why we should not just follow the herd.
Read
April 30, 2007yes! i am a big fan of sunstein- he is a very prolific author;
January 26, 2009
3.5, but only limited to whole stars
Want to read
November 26, 2014looks like an essential read to me
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews