Why moderate viewpoints get squashed

I was recently listening to an episode of the Hidden Brain podcast (the episode was “ A Conspiracy of Silence “) and it raised an interesting idea.

The bulk of the podcast was on the subject of preference falsification, the idea where people will intentionally falsify their preferences when with other people. These little lies can be socially beneficial, such as supporting a friend when they get a new haircut (“Do you like it?”, “Yes, it’s great!”), but can have some huge downsides.

Immigration

Shankar Vendantam, the host, raised an interesting scenario that I think may of us have seen:

Preference falsification is more likely to help people that have strong views or extreme views rather than moderate.

If you think there should be, for example, zero immigration to the United States, you can call anyone who has even mildly pro-immigrant views a traitor. On the other hand if you think there should be open borders to the United States, you can call anyone who calls for any immigration restrictions a racist.

I feel it’s harder to do this if you have moderate views precisely because moderation suggests a certain amount of flexibility, nuance, or even compromise.