The illusion of consensus is powerful. Here’s why you should fight it.
The illusion of consensus is powerful. Here’s why you should fight it.
By Laura Kennedy | Published: 2025-11-27 10:28:00 | Source: Thinking – Big Think
Sign up for Big Think on Substack
The most surprising and impactful new stories delivered to your inbox every week for free.
It is the spring of 1951. With the Korean War escalating and the world embroiled in a scandalous controversy over the recent espionage conviction of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, students at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania gather in small groups to participate in what they believe is a test of vision. They were shown three lines of distinctly different lengths and asked which one matched the target line. Unaware that they are participating in a psychological experiment supervised by social psychologist Solomon Asch, participants are unaware that everyone else in their group has been instructed to give the wrong answer.
The task is simple – one line clearly matches the target while the other two lines clearly do not. However, when everyone in the room says otherwise, the students begin to doubt what they see. This is the strength of conformity, which Asch designed the test to measure, with 75% of participants agreeing with a clearly false consensus at least once. They override their judgment in the face of certainty from the group.
This was a complex dynamic in 1951; Today it has become more than that. Ash’s “majority” is now a cultural force whose atmospheric pressure we face endlessly online. Celebrity issues and ideological trends often change faster than we can gain a deep understanding of the issues in question, yet we are motivated to align ourselves with the prevailing point of view and signal accordingly. Of course, as in Asch’s experiment, the “majority” we interact with can be an illusion that makes us equate louder voices with power.
We inherit our ideas about morality, duty, and truth from the people around us.
Asch saw the enormous power of consensus in action, realizing that most of us would rather risk being wrong than go against the majority. His experience raised a question that had no moral or political risks. When we feel pressured to jump on a moral risk bandwagon, we are motivated to conform to the moral outlook of others. Pressure for approval often works in this quiet, invisible way. There is no overt force or threat, just the feeling of weakness that comes from isolating oneself. The discomfort of wondering whether we will face the consequences of holding the “wrong” point of view, or simply refraining from broadcasting the “right” point of view. Amidst all this, there is also doubt among Ash students – how likely are we to be right when the majority insist we are not?
This turbulent place is where philosopher John Stuart Mill encourages us to live, if we can bear it. Write in On freedom Nearly a century before Asch told his subjects that he was testing their vision rather than their drive to conform, Mill warned that Victorian society, and societies to come, would share a force toward conformity that he described as “the tyranny of prevailing opinion.” His concern was not with laws, but with the standards by which we live, and the subtle but powerful ways in which societies discourage us from deviating from them.
while On freedom Often read as a defense of freedom of expression, it is essentially a defense of independent thought. We inherit our ideas about morality, duty, and truth from the people around us. As we grow up, we gravitate toward groups and social settings that reflect our own views and are subject to implicit pressures to conform to social norms. This has its benefits – it prevents most of us from having to make a video call over speakerphone in the library – but it also limits us. Mill was concerned that in Victorian Britain, as now, we tend to internalize the prevailing narrative about how best to think and live until our judgments are replaced by tradition. That’s what students at Swarthmore College did when they were shown two mismatched lines and insisted on them.
Mill was concerned that when we avoid the friction of nonconformity, we have no way of knowing whether our views have been co-opted or negatively absorbed by our environment. He wrote: “We may think (ourselves) free but (we) choose what is usual rather than our inclinations so that it does not occur to us to have any inclination except what is usual.” Ash’s subjects were not particularly foolish or cowardly. They were ordinary people responding to pressure by putting aside their agency.
We don’t even have to actually disagree to be construed as having failed to get along.
Since Asch’s study, psychologists have identified relevant biases. Through the false consensus effect, we overestimate the extent to which others share our views. This is our tendency to believe that “everyone” believes X Because people in our immediate group said they believed X. Pluralistic ignorance describes a “collective delusion” in which a group appears to hold a consensus opinion, even though most people do not secretly hold that opinion; They agree to it because they mistakenly believe that everyone else really believes in it. Even in the face of external certainty, we seem to experience private doubt.
Mill’s test of independent reason involves having and expressing this doubt. He suggests that we should feel encouraged when our friends look at us skeptically, or when a WhatsApp group chat becomes quiet when we politely disagree. Friction is not proof that our views are correct, but it is proof that they are being tested. Without this resistance, we cannot know whether our views are truly our views, arrived at for sound and defensible reasons. The willingness to expose ourselves to this discomfort – this vulnerability, as Mill tells us – is a form of discipline. In order to understand our beliefs, we must take seriously the beliefs that oppose them.
We don’t even have to actually disagree to be construed as having failed to get along. One of the most controversial forms of nonconformity of our time is something entirely different: no opinion at all. This is not passive disengagement, but a willful refusal to declare a position on any issue currently dominating the public conversation, whether it be a geopolitical conflict, a viral controversy, or the Instagram black squares of 2020. This pressure to declare that we are “on side” with whatever is currently taking over the news cycle evokes Ash’s experience. The implicit majority treats silence as complicity, and the result is that we are encouraged to carry out the agreement even when we are unsure, uninformed, or just weary of the constant cycle of one issue being the only moral question that seems to matter before it passes notice and the “majority” moves on. In an environment like this, choosing not to speak out can be as non-committal, and perhaps just as difficult, as open dissent.
No doubt some participants in Asch’s experiment laughed their way out the door once the trick was explained to them. Others may have been disturbed by the extent to which they were willing to surrender to the “tyranny of prevailing opinion.” Mel tells us that this discomfort is a good thing. It is the seed of independent thought.
Sign up for Big Think on Substack
The most surprising and impactful new stories delivered to your inbox every week for free.
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
