ISOMERISM, as an activity emanating from the collaboration of SCImPULSE Foundation and SIT, is invested in public pedagogy about digital (and public) health, and as such it is also constantly studying how to optimize the beneficial effect of its outreach and exchanges, whilst limiting the fallout exploitation by captious agents...
Hence, we have been rather excited when a new manuscript bringing together network theory and communication sciences appeared on our radars, under the title "Link updating strategies influence consensus decisions as a function of the direction of communication".
The authors show that users can bias opinions in their favour by actively breaking ties with unlike-minded others when choosing whom to follow but maintaining ties with unlike-minded others when choosing whom to target. Notably, the effects of link updating were only relevant under the condition that individuals were not highly stubborn (e.g. when uncertainty is high and opinions have not yet consolidated intertwining with social identities of the audience).
Listen to everyone, but only talk with those who think alike or are sincerely doubtful.
Relating to the above, a very interesting paper came out with the title "Beware ‘persuasive communication devices’ when writing and reading scientific articles" where the authors reflect on the manouvers played when writing academic papers, often to reinforce the case for one's findings (and sadly to downplay the limitations of ones work)... it's a recommended reading in an age in which journals' profiles no longer (or had they ever?) correlate with the quality of checks over the work and claims presented by authors (an example for all, the recent published and much hyped "Faster sorting algorithms discovered using deep reinforcement learning" ...a manuscript presenting artifacts and tortured interpretations ...if you would like a more technical and reflected commentary, we recommend you read this by Justine Tunney)
No comments:
Post a Comment