Can the mass man discuss with others?Can the mass man discuss with others?

Tsuyoshi Hatori (Tokyo Institute of Technology)

Satoshi Fujii (Kyoto University)

Yoshihiro Komatsu (JR East)

An empirical study on spiritual vulgarity of the masses and failure of dialectic discussion

IntroductionIntroduction An important role of discussion in social dilemmas

Group discussion has a facilitative effect on cooperation (e.g., Dawes, 1980; Kerr & Kaufman-Gilliland, 1994).

Discussion itself is cooperative activities of human beings Therefore,

Discussion might end up in a failure due to defection.► Second-order social dilemmas

What is “Cooperative” Discussion?What is “Cooperative” Discussion?

► Dialectic (Hegel, 1816)

The way to reach “the truth” (= “good society”)

Thesis Anti-thesis

Syn-thesis

The truth

AufhebenAnti-thesis

Necessary Condition for Dialectic Discussion

Attitudes to promote Anti-dialectic discussions

• Desire only to confute their opponents

• Never change their own opinions

• Only insist on their own opinions

• Never listen to others’ opinions

• Make an easy compromise

• Existence of differences in opinion between participants (Thesis and Anti-thesis)

• Participants’ belief in the existence of “the truth”

In our presentation of the last conference (Fujii, Hatori, Komatsu, 2007)…

► THE MASSES by Jose Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955)

The mass is a human type which is characterized by spiritual vulgarity “The mass is all that which sets no value on itself-good or ill-based on specific grounds, but which feels itself ‘just like everybody,’ and nevertheless is not concerned about it; is, in fact, quite happy to feel itself as one with everybody else” (Cited by “The Rebellion of the Masses”(Ortega,1930))

Contumelious factor 　　　　　　 Autistic factor

Who Interrupts Dialectic Discussion?Who Interrupts Dialectic Discussion?

The Mass Man = DefectorIt was shown that Vulgarity Scale influences more strongly on defective behavior in social dilemmas than Social Value Orientation.

Vulgarity Scale of the Mass

Feelings of disobedience and blind faith in one’s own ability

Refusal of one’s relationships with others and with surrounding environments

The Masses The Masses andand Failure of Dialectic Discussion Failure of Dialectic Discussion

“Man who does not want give reasons or to be right, but simply shows himself resolved to impose his opinions (Ortega, p.81)”“(The mass) leads him to shut himself off from any external court of appeal; not to listen, not to submit his opinions to judgment, not to consider others’ existence (p. 107)”

“They are from birth deficient in the faculty of giving attention to what is outside themselves (p. 73)”

“The mass man would feel himself lost if he accepted discussion”

The mass loses the orientation toward objective values

The mass believes that his own opinion should be accepted against others and exhibits intolerance to others

The mass may dissatisfy the necessary condition for dialectic discussion

✔

✔

✔

✔

To test the hypothesis, an experiment was implemented

HypothesisHypothesis

Dialectic discussion tends not tobe conducted, when the mass mantakes part in the discussion.

Flow of ExperimentFlow of ExperimentPre-Questionnaire Survey

Experiment (Debate)

Debate (20 minutes) over a social issue

(Totally 14 debates were conducted.)※ All debates were taped and transcribed.

Post-Questionnaire Survey

Mass (5persons) Non-mass (4persons)

ranked in the top 1/6 of the vulgarity score

ranked in the bottom 1/6 of the vulgarity score

1) mass & mass (mm, 5 times)

2) non-mass & non-mass (nn, 4 times)

3) mass & non-mass (nm, 5 times)

RESPONDENTS:100 persons (College students, average age:20.65(SD1.85), Men:89, Women:11)

QUESTION ITEMS: • The vulgarity scale

• Attitudes regarding the topics of discussion BEFORE EXPERIMENT

QUESTION ITEM: • Attitude regarding the topic of discussion AFTER EXPERIMENT

Ex.) Abolition of death penalty, Abortion Construction of high way, etc.

“Respond”“Repeat”“Answer”“Chime”“Monologue”“Others”

Protocol AnalysisProtocol AnalysisAll utterances were classified and coded in term of conversational function with a coding scheme (Tomida et al. 2004)

List of Coding Scheme

Conflicting Utterance: Utterance aimed to deny and refute

opponent’s statements (= Antithesis).

Cooperative Utterance: Utterance aimed to construct a new

idea cooperatively (=Thesis).

“Object”“Doubt”“Problem Presentation”“Paraphrase”“Interpretation”“Confirmation”

“Opinion”“Explanation”“Question”“Agreement”

Categorized as

“Conflicting Utterance”

Categorized as

“Cooperative Utterance”

Result 1: Quantitative AnalysisResult 1: Quantitative Analysis

Gross Utterance

0

50

40

30

20

10

Significant (p < .05)

Ave. Number of Gross Utterancesper debate

non-mass in the discussion between non-mass & non-mass

mass in the discussion betweenmass & mass

mass in the discussion between mass and non-mass

non-mass in the discussion between mass and non-mass

(times)

Ave. number of gross utterances by non-mass in nn is larger than by the other cases

The masses tend to make long speeches in a discussion.

Significant (p < .05)

Ave. Number of “conflicting utterance”, “cooperative utterance” and “question”

Conflictingutterance

Cooperativeutterance

Question

Result 2: Quantitative AnalysisResult 2: Quantitative Analysis

Significant (p < .1)

non-mass in the discussion between non-mass & non-mass

mass in the discussionbetween mass & mass

mass in the discussion between mass and non-mass

non-mass in the discussion between mass and non-mass

(times)

Ave. number of “conflicting utterance”, “cooperative utterance” and “question” by non-mass in nn was larger than by mass in mm

Pattern1Pattern1: Conflicting utterance → Silence

Pattern2Pattern2: Conflicting utterance → Explanation, Opinion → Silence

Pattern3Pattern3: Conflicting utterance → Agreement

Pattern4Pattern4: Conflicting utterance → Explanation, Opinion → Agreement

Pattern5Pattern5: Conflicting utterance → Cooperative discussion

Pattern6Pattern6: Exchange of conflicting utterances

Pattern7Pattern7: Confirmation of facts and information

Pattern8Pattern8: Others

Conflicting SituationConflicting Situation 37 conflicting situations occurred in 14 debates Conflicting situations were categorized into 8 patterns as follows

Non-dialectic discussion

Non-dialectic discussion

Dialectic discussion (possibly)

5

4

0

2

1

0

0

1

2

1

1

0

2

2

6

0

3

1

0

2

1

1

2

0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

mm

nm

nn Pattern1Pattern2Pattern3Pattern4Pattern5Pattern6Pattern7Pattern8

Fig. Proportion of Each Pattern of Conflicting Situation

mass & non-mass

non-mass &

non-mass

Result 3: Conflicting SituationResult 3: Conflicting Situation

In the discussions between mass & mass, conflicting situation where participants ignored an opposite opinion or sidestepped discussed issues was often seen

mass & mass

In the discussions between mass & non-mass, conflicting situation which was a mere exchange of conflicting opinions was often seen

In the discussions between non-mass & non-mass, the conflicting situation where participants ignored an opposite opinion was not seen and the situation where participants discussed cooperatively was often seen

Silence

Cooperative discussion

Result 4: Opinion ChangeResult 4: Opinion Change

mass & non-mass

non-mass & non-mass

mass & mass

Mean degree of change of attitude

Participants in the discussions between non-mass & non-mass tend to change their attitude regarding the topics of discussionsOn the other hand…

Participants in the discussions between non-mass & mass, and between mass & mass tend not to change their attitude regarding the topics of discussions

They frequently proposed “conflicting utterance” (= Antithesis)

However, they easily cooperate in discussion (= maybe Synthesis)

Consequently, their opinions change through the discussion(= maybe Aufheben)

On the other hands, in the discussions between non-mass & non-mass

The Masses… tended only to insist their own opinion and

not to listen to opposite opinions tended to ignore antithesis or tended to switch discussed

issues when antithesis is proposed

Therefore,

hardly changed their own opinions

SummarySummary

ConclusionConclusion

• Discussion where participants with high vulgarity take part cannot satisfy necessary conditions for dialectic discussion

• Dialectic discussion cannot be conducted if there is even oneeven one participant with extremely high vulgarity in discussion

The hypothesis in this study is supportedThe hypothesis in this study is supported

These results imply that…

for at least college students targeted in this study

Future research;Measures to reduce the vulgarity of the masses should be considered.

Thank youThank you

Vulgarity ScaleVulgarity ScaleContumelious Factor 　　 I do anything I want, no matter what others say.　　 My opinion is always right.　　 I will win any contest that matters to me.　　 The world would be a better place, if society went along with my preferences.　　 Other peoples’ opinions usually are worthless.　　 Justifications and reasons do not interest me.　　 I am not interested in the causes of things.　　 It is possible that our nation will disappear in the future. *　　 Any problem can be solved with technology.　　 In the final analysis, we are all alone.　　 I should not depend on other people.　　 There are no moral or ethical absolutes.

Autistic Factor　　 I have respect and consideration for traditions.*　　 Our daily life is full of things that should be appreciated.*　　 Our world is full of wonder.*　　 I feel an obligation to inherit, improve and maintain tradition.* 　　 I demand more of myself.*　　 My life would be meaningless if I could not serve a higher good.*　　 I am willing to undertake obligations and duties more frequently than others.*