Right after the 2016 US election, we heard a lot about the "echo chamber" that saw a lot of people talking about issues in social media, but mostly to people of similar beliefs.
Why did neither side have much success persuading people of conflicting beliefs and what should we do differently in the future?
What can we learn about future political persuasion?
See more thoughts here:
https://mimarek1.blogspot.com/2018/01/crowd-sourcing-political-persuasion-in.html
I do recomend you to follow Richard E. Petty.
See here: https://richardepetty.com/
and The Attitudes & Persuasion Lab (https://richardepetty.com/apl/)
Many years ago, as an undergraduate, I did a course with a very wise philosopher. I did a simple research paper for him on newspapers and their influence on people's political views and beliefs. I concluded that this influence was highly significant and, indeed, often very damaging. He gave me a decent grade, but commented something like this: do people's political views and prejudices develop as a result of the newspapers they read, or do they read newspapers that reflect the views they already hold? I had to think about that for many, many years. I still do!!
I suppose my point is that for many people the latter is nearer the truth. Politics, at least in western countries, is now about trying to woo the smaller other group. At least until a major set of issues comes along to change the game for a period of time. After which we'll come to settle down into new such groups.
I hope this helps a little.
Christopher NOCK
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Media
- Social Media