Difference between revisions of "Group polarization"
From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki
(→Further Readings) |
(→Further Readings) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
'''affective polarization''': meaning that our feelings (affect) are different towards members of our own group compared to outsiders. Growing intolerance in the U.S. is a puzzle because disagreeing about policies need not cause rampant mistrust and legislative gridlock | '''affective polarization''': meaning that our feelings (affect) are different towards members of our own group compared to outsiders. Growing intolerance in the U.S. is a puzzle because disagreeing about policies need not cause rampant mistrust and legislative gridlock | ||
| + | |||
| + | [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-identity-not-issues-explains-the-partisan-divide/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciam%2Fmind-and-brain+%28Topic%3A+Mind+%26+Brain%29 How Identity, Not Issues, Explains the Partisan Divid] | ||
Also in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization wikipedia] | Also in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization wikipedia] | ||
Latest revision as of 14:50, 5 November 2018
Group polarization is a means of a group to generate action. To generate a group needs to reach agreed SON, and generate enough energy for action from its members. Conservative create this energy by facilitating group thinking, and creating a mood of danger to the group FFFF. The feeling of danger, is usually created by bringing evidences from extreme events and groups that threatened the wale-fare of the members of the group members. These evidence, due to group thinking are unchallenged and therefore seems real and critical. This admixture of group thinking and constructing a state of need for action in face of a generated feeling of danger is producing a state of polarization.
More recently, the literature has offered contradictory findings about deliberation in enclaves. Sunstein (2006) argue that when like-minded people cluster, they often aggravate their biases, spreading falsehoods and polarizing opinions. Findings from Karpowitz et al. (2009) and Grönlund et al. (forthcoming) contradict the groupthink and polarization hypotheses of enclave deliberation since they did not find any evidence of group polarization and amplification of cognitive errors.
Further Readings
Group polarization in deliberation[1] See Cass R. Sunstein - Why Societies Need Dissent[2], and also this article that suggests that social networks will create an increase in group polarization[3]
affective polarization: meaning that our feelings (affect) are different towards members of our own group compared to outsiders. Growing intolerance in the U.S. is a puzzle because disagreeing about policies need not cause rampant mistrust and legislative gridlock
How Identity, Not Issues, Explains the Partisan Divid
Also in wikipedia
References
- ↑ Catherine Hafer, Dimitri Landa, Deliberation as Self-Discovery and Group Polarization, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2007
- ↑ Sunstein, Cass R., Why Societies Need Dissent. Harvard University Press, September 2003
- ↑ Petter Holme and M. E. J. Newman, Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions, Physical Review E, 2006