I have long thought that MPs should universally come off Twitter. After reading this insightful article, and thinking of the whatsapp groups I am in, coming off whatsapp is proably a good idea too!
I think you missed the worst of it Tom! WhatsApp (and generic messaging) definitely has benefits when it’s used for organisation - my tennis and squash clubs would fall apart without it - but it can easily get out of control when people are trying to discuss things.
Has anyone done any work on combatting group polarisation? There are so many areas where I see otherwise sensible people moving further and further away from actually sensible positions on things. It would be somewhat comforting to know if there was a way to reverse that.
The most effective way I’ve heard of is to expand the group while introducing people with less polarised views. It’s tricky though because there’s a human tendency to seek out reinforcement of our existing views.
I submit to you today's social media rediscovery of Osama Bin Laden as a case study. The issue is the "business model". Someone can get in-group status by using him as a symbol, in intra-group conflict. It's not like this is taking place in private - in fact, the public nature of it is exactly the point. Call it "virtue signaling" or "purity spiral" or "status positioning", expanding the group can just provide opportunities for the loud subgroups.
Which is difficult for private groups, because it can be difficult, if not impossible, to 'vet' people's opinions and prejudices before they join, and for groups based on shared interests or friendship groups, there's no plausible reason to. I'm thinking of various Slack and WhatsApp groups I'm in that share some degree of group think about specific topics, and I honestly can't see how I'd practically expand those groups out to combat that problem.
I think a big problem is that there are very few incentives to be accurate rather than popular. I don't know how you'd set up such a system though. Reflexive centrism doesn't work, because sometimes truth really is on one side or the another, not in the middle. Or there's just a clash of values which can't be ignored (just to take one example, I don't think many UK people would would agree with many US people on what's a "sensible" position on private ownership of guns).
I have long thought that MPs should universally come off Twitter. After reading this insightful article, and thinking of the whatsapp groups I am in, coming off whatsapp is proably a good idea too!
I think you missed the worst of it Tom! WhatsApp (and generic messaging) definitely has benefits when it’s used for organisation - my tennis and squash clubs would fall apart without it - but it can easily get out of control when people are trying to discuss things.
Has anyone done any work on combatting group polarisation? There are so many areas where I see otherwise sensible people moving further and further away from actually sensible positions on things. It would be somewhat comforting to know if there was a way to reverse that.
The most effective way I’ve heard of is to expand the group while introducing people with less polarised views. It’s tricky though because there’s a human tendency to seek out reinforcement of our existing views.
I submit to you today's social media rediscovery of Osama Bin Laden as a case study. The issue is the "business model". Someone can get in-group status by using him as a symbol, in intra-group conflict. It's not like this is taking place in private - in fact, the public nature of it is exactly the point. Call it "virtue signaling" or "purity spiral" or "status positioning", expanding the group can just provide opportunities for the loud subgroups.
Which is difficult for private groups, because it can be difficult, if not impossible, to 'vet' people's opinions and prejudices before they join, and for groups based on shared interests or friendship groups, there's no plausible reason to. I'm thinking of various Slack and WhatsApp groups I'm in that share some degree of group think about specific topics, and I honestly can't see how I'd practically expand those groups out to combat that problem.
I think a big problem is that there are very few incentives to be accurate rather than popular. I don't know how you'd set up such a system though. Reflexive centrism doesn't work, because sometimes truth really is on one side or the another, not in the middle. Or there's just a clash of values which can't be ignored (just to take one example, I don't think many UK people would would agree with many US people on what's a "sensible" position on private ownership of guns).