STRESSING the importance of drawing on collective wisdom, a Chinese idiom says that "three cobblers with their wits combined surpass Zhuge Liang, the master mind."

The meaning is clear: the wisdom of the masses can exceed that of the wisest individual.

But in the administration of state affairs, shrewd politicians have also cautioned that consulting public opinion can be counterproductive.

One of the greatest Chinese reformers Shang Yang (395-338 BC), who was reputed to have played a pivotal role in helping the State of Qin unite China, famously said while launching his reforms that "when exploring the moral profundities, one should ignore conventionalities, and one should avoid sounding public opinion when contemplating great achievements."

According to Cass R. Sunstein in his "Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide" (Oxford University Press, 2009), whether group deliberation be beneficial or detrimental depends largely on the makeup of the group in question.

In other words, the advice offered by the three cobblers in the Chinese idiom would be very different from the advice given by three scholars, or businessmen.

Sunstein concludes that hundreds of studies worldwide show that when groups discuss an issue, members take a more extreme position in the direction they were inclined before the meeting.

Polarization

This phenomenon, known as "group polarization," provides Sunstein a good starting point to investigate extremism, which can be found in virtually all cultures and nations.

Sunstein believes that "a good way to create an extremist group, or a cult of any kind, is to separate members from the rest of society."

Polarization becomes more manifest when the group becomes suspicious of nonmembers and discounts their opinions.

The net effect of this polarization is a society becoming less tolerant of opposing viewpoints.

During the chaotic "cultural revolution" (1966-1976) there were numerous cases of so-called counterrevolutionaries being subject to public denunciation and humiliation. Some were dragged before a kangaroo court, physically abused, or beaten to death.

In these cases, often inexplicable hatred towards some individual was infinitely amplified in a crowd infected with extremist sentiment.

Another explanation may be that some accusers intend to brutalize victims with a vengeance in order to confirm their own righteousness or correctness.

This is a phenomenon observable in nearly all spheres of human endeavor.

When "academic fraud watchdog" Fang Zhouzi recently accused multitalented blogger and writer Han Han of hiring ghostwriters to sustain his literary output, unprejudiced observers might get a clue as to how this flamboyant, 30-year-old could juggle his professional racing career, his love of photography, his penchant for writing lyrics, his literary output, and the management and consumption of his fabulous wealth.

But there has also been a surge of Han sympathizers. In addition to the capitalists or interested parties who stand to profit from the Han idolatry, they also include fans who idolize Han with their heart and their pockets and would die to keep their idols from being tarnished.

More examples can be observed in the society where conspicuous consumption has come to eclipse shopping as a means to meet real needs.

When someone splurges thousands of yuan on a LV or a Coach bag, they have been convinced of the worth of the item by their neighbors, their colleagues, or advertisers.

On such occasions, the aggregation of like-minded individuals serves only to strengthen a bias, and effectively minimizes the risk of independent judgment.

It has been observed that when people are unsure about their beliefs, they adopt more moderate views. But they become more confident and extreme when their views are shared by others.

Moreover, studies find that groups become more extreme as those with moderate views depart, leaving only the "true believers."

Access to information used to be lauded as liberating and enlightening, but as it turns out now, a lot of polarization today can be achieved through information cascade. Contrary to conventional belief, easy access to flow of information actually makes it easier to control and manipulate that information.

Naturally people tends to interact with others with similar education, age, or beliefs, within a compatible network.

Sunstein explains that cascades can be "informational" or "reputational."

Informational cascades

Informational cascades occur when people rely on data from those who hold strong, stated positions. Such cascades can, for instance, fuel asset bubbles.

Reputational cascades occur when people stifle their own opinions to concur with a group, and thus raise their own reputation. Politicians make use of this on a daily basis, exploiting people's susceptibility to what others tell them.

The significance of being a group member goes beyond the mere symbolic.

"The very decision to wear a uniform can have significant behavioral effects; warriors who change their appearance in preparation for war are more likely to brutalize their enemies," the book asserts.

While the author draw a line between group polarization and a decision reached through a democratic process, the demarcation may be vague and biased.

For instance, when a small group of people use violence to express their disagreement, it can be automatically labeled terrorist.

But when a state fired by patriotic fever launched a war against and toppled an independent state, based on a charge later found to be false - at enormous cost to innocent civilian life - the invasion was and is described as anti-terrorist.

It is easy to see that when need arises, the machine known as democracy can be surprisingly efficient at manufacturing unanimity and eliminating dissent.

The few voices of skeptics were quickly out-shouted or bullied into silence or compliance.

As the book states, "It is tempting to wonder whether group polarization is a product of particular cultures and peculiar 'types'."

This insight can be also valuable to Chinese leadership who have been flattered by decades of heady growth, but have failed to come to grips with the plight of migrants workers, and their left-behind children and parents.

If migrants and their families are summarily "urbanized" but continue to face systemic segregation and deprivations compared to other privileged urban citizens, the "urbanization" is a misnomer that disguises more than clarifies.