Perhaps football stadiums serve as a model for explaining the current debate culture. Since the followers of the game in the Terraces and teams gathered, bundle them in a pack of their destructive energy and the roar of invective in the direction of the opposite side. Whistle of the referee a Foul, to interpret on both sides, the processes are completely different – so each of your senses.

But back in the Arena of the debate: the Fanblöcken comparable to the polarized structure of Opinion does not have to produce necessarily destructive results. Scientists in particular to Misha Teplitskiy, and James Evans of the University of Chicago in the journal “Nature, Human Behaviour, social published” a study shows that The quality of Wikipedia articles on controversial topics is higher, if the opinions of the author teams are polarized. Transferred to the football stadium, is what they say: A game report would be more precise if the two fans would have to this to formulate together.

The scientists evaluated for their work results, which is about 400’000-editors-Teams in the Online encyclopedia, Wikipedia delivered. The article of the most extensive dictionary of the world are always written by a variety of authors, transcribed, corrected and re-written. The Parties are, of course, rarely in the Detail agreed – anyone who wants to understand it, you can do this in the discussion part of each contribution, which is often longer than the actual article.

No homogeneous opinion bubbles

The researchers Teplitskiy and Evans calculated the contributions of the authors to themes of relevance to their camp affiliation. Using an additional sample for them to protect also, if anyone has considered the left or the right. Met authors with conflicting attitudes to a topic, they became more balanced and better article than if the majority of the writers were of the same view. Since people tend to seek confirmation of their views, a slows down diversity of opinion and the often exuberant zeal-too-committed creditor trust.

“a wide range of perspectives typically lead to superior performance of a team,” write the social scientists to Teplitskiy and Evans. Demands for diversity or Diversity is, actually, but mostly not on opinions, but on gender, skin color, or national origin. However, it is not wrong necessarily, except when this leads bubbles to the formation of homogeneous Opinion. All members of a group are in fact in their views to agree, this favors the radicalization of the divided opinions.

If the group consists only of like-Minded people are radical in their opinions materialize quickly.

The psychologist David Myers, Paul Bach and George Bishop have already demonstrated in the 1970s, such as the lack of criticism in groups of zealots produced. So the researchers are right, Left, a supporter of military intervention, opponents of military intervention and followers of other ideologically-mined fields have studied and always the same result: Stuck psychologists mobilized exclusively like-Minded people in groups, radical their opinions in the discussions. If all find reasons as to why you have all of the right, and on the right side, arise from neither moderation nor intellectual modesty.

If all sing the same song, then the individual finds a voice that roars the loudest and is always coarser chants intoned; otherwise, it is a bit boring in the joint choir. This soloist’s voice then forces the other group members to make the point, in turn, getting louder and louder screaming, and positions. Beyond the theory, this is about the radicalization of the reactor by the name of Twitter watch. Under the network of feminists and their ideological counterparts, for example, the temperate will find there is no balancing voices with the greatest attention, on the contrary. Who thrashes fixed on the ideological timpani, gathered more audience than the thread Moderate.

Heated discussions between the author teams

At Wikipedia are forced to be the members of enemy tribes, unlike Twitter, however, to work with each other: If one changes an article can make a Yes back. Without understanding no usable Text. Sparks fly sometimes: “Polarized author teams to produce richer discussions”, say Teplitskiy and Evans. The tone was heated. But at least the result right at the end.

The cooperation in ideologically diverse Teams also have their costs, write to the social scientists. The highest hurdle was that at the end, often all the parties Involved with a cups feeling remain, even in the case of the Wikipedia authors. The product of the joint work or the result of the dispute of the followers of polarized opinions is necessarily a compromise.

This deviation from the respective Orthodoxy don’t like the dedicated holders of extreme opinions, of course, ever – the truth, it serves, however, with high probability.

stupid way to put people to the highest situations of hate, in which you have to seriously deal with counter-positions to their core beliefs. The Illusion of perspective and the Conviction to belong to the Good, to feel simply much to nice to put them into question.

(editing Tamedia)

Created: 17.03.2019, 18:13 PM