#group polarization

[queenbruv]

call me crazy, but posting your opinion online and then saying “and if you disagree, unfollow me” is...unproductive. is this an unpopular opinion? maybe, but i’m sharing it anyway, because that’s the point of the internet.

do y’all know about something called group polarization? it’s a social psychology term. here’s the wikipedia definition: “the tendency for a group to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members.”

what does that mean? it means that when groups of people who all have the same ideas hang out and discuss said ideas, their opinions on those ideas becomes much stronger as a group than each person individually may feel. you end up getting real pissed at the opposition even if you previously fell sort of in-between on the subject.

group polarization is an echo chamber. everyone is having the same opinion, and it just keeps getting louder.

asking someone who disagrees with you to unfollow does exactly that. it breeds a group of followers for you who all agree with everything you say and all the policies you support and all the people you protect. and it’s great to identify those people, but that doesn’t make any change at all. those aren’t the people you need to convince.

if you’re trying to make a difference - if you’re trying to actually change minds - the opposition is precisely who you should be addressing. 

 TL;DR: stop asking those who disagree with you to unfollow you. instead, use your platform and their attention to spread good ideas and researched information. don’t avoid the problem. address the problem.

[mindblowingfactz]

People in a like-minded group tend to have more extreme and controversial views than they would if they were thinking on their own, a phenomenon called Group Polarization.

[atarimcgregor]

Here is what he concluded about social media today: “First, we don’t know how to deal with rumors. Rumors that confirm people’s biases are now believed and spread among millions of people.” Second, “We tend to only communicate with people that we agree with, and thanks to social media, we can mute, un-follow and block everybody else. Third, online discussions quickly descend into angry mobs. … It’s as if we forget that the people behind screens are actually real people and not just avatars. “And fourth, it became really hard to change our opinions. Because of the speed and brevity of social media, we are forced to jump to conclusions and write sharp opinions in 140 characters about complex world affairs. And once we do that, it lives forever on the Internet.” Fifth, and most crucial, he said, “today, our social media experiences are designed in a way that favors broadcasting over engagements, posts over discussions, shallow comments over deep conversations. … It’s as if we agreed that we are here to talk at each other instead of talking with each other.”

Thomas L. Friedman on Wael Ghonim, an important activist in the 2011 Egyptian Revolution

Social Media: Destroyer or Creator?

[atarimcgregor]

It is commonly found that groups make even more extreme decisions, in the direction of the existing norm, than we would predict they would, given the initial opinions of the group members. Group polarization is said to occur when, after discussion, the attitudes held by the individual group members become more extreme than they were before the group began discussing the topic (Brauer, Judd, & Gliner, 2006; Myers, 1982). This may seem surprising, given the widespread belief that groups tend to push people toward consensus and the middle-ground in decision making. Actually, they may often lead to more extreme decisions being made than those that individuals would have taken on their own. [...] Group polarization does not occur in all groups and in all settings but tends to happen most often when two conditions are present: First, the group members must have an initial leaning toward a given opinion or decision. If the group members generally support liberal policies, their opinions are likely to become even more liberal after discussion. But if the group is made up equally of both liberals and conservatives, group polarization would not be expected. Second, group polarization is strengthened by discussion of the topic. ... Group polarization has also been observed in important real-world contexts, including financial decision making in corporate boardrooms (Cheng & Chiou, 2008; Zhu, 2010). It has also been argued that the recent polarization in political attitudes in many countries, for example in the United States between the “blue” Democratic states versus the “red” Republican states, is occurring in large part because each group spends time communicating with other like-minded group members, leading to more extreme opinions on each side. And some have argued that terrorist groups develop their extreme positions and engage in violent behaviors as a result of the group polarization that occurs in their everyday interactions (Drummond, 2002; McCauley, 1989). As the group members, all of whom initially have some radical beliefs, meet and discuss their concerns and desires, their opinions polarize, allowing them to become progressively more extreme. Because they are also away from any other influences that might moderate their opinions, they may eventually become mass killers.

Principles of Social Psychology: "Group Decision Making,” Charles Stangor

[mind------matter]

Berit Brogaard on group polarization on the Internet. 

[theravennerd]

Oh god, I'm reading some article for a class and it's basically describing the Tumblr community. Tumblr is all I can think about during this thing.

[ablue-lion]

Group Polarisation

----

The recent Elections in UK have resulted in a series of debates between not only opposite parties, but also between ideologically different sections of the British population. 

It appeared that everyone wanted to convince some others that their own ideas about the major issues in our modern society are the "right" ones.

Unfortunately, social psychology studies have shown that in fact, group discussions tend to polarise groups so that, rather than people’s views being averaged, their initial preferences can become exaggerated and their final position is often more extreme than it was initially.

For example, after a group discussion, people already supportive of a war become more supportive, people with an initial tendency towards racism become more racist and a group with a slight preference for one job candidate will come out with a much stronger preference.

Group polarisation has been widely discussed in terms of political behaviour. For example, suppose a group of labours sit down to discuss a health care reform and a new policy proposed by a conservative politician. In the beginning of the discussion, the group as a whole may be somewhat against the healthcare reform policy (thus having an initial group attitude). After deliberating the policy, the group will demonstrate that they are now more opposed to the policy than ever. In this situation, the initial attitude was reinforced and the group became more polarised against the policy. This type of situation occurs in everyday life as politicians and other people are constantly debating issues surrounding labours versus conservative, pro-Europe versus anti-Europe attitudes, pro-gay marriage versus anti-gay marriage, etc. In each of these scenarios, there are prominent vocal leaders on each extreme who escalate issues and cause further polarisation, throwing the debate in increasing depths of extremism.

A clear example of this polarisation has been shown to occur in UKIP party supporters, who's attitudes against immigration gradually shifted from supporting a more strict control of the immigration, to more extreme opinions (such as ALL immigrants should be kicked out of Britain), to eventually culminate with a call from a UKIP candidate for the opposition candidates, as well as people voting for them to be publicly executed for treason.  This in turn, was reflected in the greater shift towards extremism and violent fascist-like attitudes in a large proportion of their party supporters. 

[inspiteofv]

And when we spend our time hanging out in niche diet circles where most people think the same things and eat same foods and gripe the same gripes, it becomes all too easy to stop questioning what we “know.”

Denise Minger