The core message of this article is that it's possible for even large groups of people to be wrong about things and that those people won't think they're wrong (they're wrong about being wrong). The author summarizes this mechanism as: these people are so accustomed to being "right" by appealing to consensus that they can't imagine being wrong.
This argument seems to generalize not just to large groups but also to small ones. The problem I see is that in the case of large groups the author calls this "privilege" and in the case of small groups he doesn't. Since the size of the group doesn't really effect the nature of group orthodoxy and adherence the argument seems to collapse to "large groups are privileged."
I agree that large groups are privileged but to claim that part of privilege is not being able to conceive of your group as being wrong seems tangential and potentially just incorrect.
Perhaps the author is assuming that people in small groups more frequently encounter other groups which
(1) they disagree with
(2) they eventually determine are right
but it isn't obvious to me that (2) would be more likely to occur in a small group than in a large group. There have been fanatical large groups and small ones which do not tolerate deviation on certain points.
It's about whether a member of the group will ever have to encounter or understand views that are unorthodox in that group.
If not, they assume they can't be wrong. It's the "way things are" which nobody disputes.
This creates a mental blindness where they can't possibly imagine someone wanting to say something in good faith that was against this "way things are", to them it would be like saying the Earth has no moon or that cats can fly. Why would you claim that? What's wrong with you?
This argument seems to generalize not just to large groups but also to small ones. The problem I see is that in the case of large groups the author calls this "privilege" and in the case of small groups he doesn't. Since the size of the group doesn't really effect the nature of group orthodoxy and adherence the argument seems to collapse to "large groups are privileged."
I agree that large groups are privileged but to claim that part of privilege is not being able to conceive of your group as being wrong seems tangential and potentially just incorrect.
Perhaps the author is assuming that people in small groups more frequently encounter other groups which (1) they disagree with (2) they eventually determine are right
but it isn't obvious to me that (2) would be more likely to occur in a small group than in a large group. There have been fanatical large groups and small ones which do not tolerate deviation on certain points.