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This discussion has been archived.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) by helel on Sunday January 16 2022, @08:35PM

    by helel (2949) on Sunday January 16 2022, @08:35PM (#1213240)

    First, it would help if you could format your ... argument ... a little better. Wall of text doesn't lend itself to reading particularly well.

    The fact that you start out describing Republicans and then jump to Democrats mid steam is also confusing. I understand the impulse to paint the two with the same brush, given their behavior and beliefs, but maybe make that explicit rather than implied?

    Finally, the whole "I stopped being conservative after taking DMT and realizing other people have feelings" thing is amusing but you make it unclear whether you view this as an actual solution to the fascists in the Republican (and Democrat?) party or if it's just a joke.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2