Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday January 16 2022, @10:21AM   Printer-friendly
from the By-the-inch,-it's-a-cinch-but-a-mile-takes-a-while dept.

We've previously discussed ( https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=21/12/11/1847236 ) how it becomes impossible to reverse the polarization of a community once their differences become too great, and how that plays out both here at SN and in the wider world. Science Blog has a piece ( https://scienceblog.com/527745/computer-model-seeks-to-explain-the-spread-of-misinformation-and-suggest-counter-measures/ ) about a PLOS paper titled "Cognitive cascades: How to model (and potentially counter) the spread of fake news" ( https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261811 ) which uses an interesting computer model to explore how this actually happens.

The model demonstrated that if the new information is too much at odds with a person's existing belief, it will be ignored. Furthermore, if that belief is connected with the person's identity, their current belief will be strengthened as a defense against cognitive dissonance. Interestingly, though, a succession of new information that gradually nudge the person to adjust their beliefs can, over time, cause the person to adopt a belief that is very different from the one they started with. This sounds like how psy-ops manipulate targets to accept extreme views.

What was the gradual change of ideas that have led national political parties to be ever more different from one another, and who fed them those messages?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by khallow on Sunday January 16 2022, @07:50PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 16 2022, @07:50PM (#1213221) Journal

    Aren't you one of the ones saying the insurrection didn't happen?

    Nope. I was instead saying that the riot in question was not an insurrection. The evidence supports me, such as a lack of action indicating lack of intent to commit insurrection (entered Capitol and milled around for a while), poorly armed for an insurrection when it would be easy to show up heavily armed (firearms instead of flagpoles and fire extinguishers, for example), and an absence of any planning of said insurrection.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Touché=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2