There is an old book by Thomas Shelling from 1978, entitled Micromotives and Macrobehavior. In it he describes a computer model to explain segregated neighbourhoods, but it also can describe self-sustaining biased communities. In the model, every agent is grey or black. They prefer their own colour, but not strongly – they will move only if 45% of their neighbours are of a different colour. Very quickly, however (within "two moves" in the original computer model) the result is a completely segregated society. More intriguingly, he
If we think of this forum as such a cross-cutting interest group, it would suggest that we would benefit from having discussions on politics, religion, and similar controversial subjects. I don't know that we have been too successful at it in the past, but maybe with practice we could get better.
On the internet, however, even with social networking sites, I can spend 55% of my time on one site, and 45% on another, without forcing anyone on either site to do the same. You need a different model.
Indeed, the internet may be our saviour here - but how people move about on the internet bears a lot of ressemblance to how hunter-gatherers look for food (can't find the link), so it may not be that different. But you're right, a new model would be good (though it still may be valid off internet). Anyone know of any new models exploring these phenomena?
The collective problem is harder to solve and we can probably only chip away at the edges. One possibility is to imagine cross-cutting communities, so that people are members of multiple communities and interest groups which don't all divide up the same way. Both liberals and conservatives might enjoy sports, for example. Atheists and believers can both get involved with cooking groups. Promoting such "non-denominational" interest groups could be a way to bring these various communities together.
The more interests, the more diversity, the less clumping, good. But there may still be a risk - replace neighbours with "people I will talk about a subject X with". If X is bias prone, we may still have the same problem; even if I'm meeting lots of other people, I need to talk about X with them. On top of "non-denominational" interest groups, we need to see that people do occasionally chat of the "denomination" issues at these groups - so, probably, the more sociable the interest groups, the better.
When you ask how to deal with such a situation, you can approach it on an individual basis or on a collective basis. Individually, you can try to expose yourself to other "neighborhoods". Visit communities which have different beliefs and customs than your own, so that you are not harmed by constantly being exposed to one set of biases.
The collective problem is harder to solve and we can probably only chip away at the edges. One possibility is to imagine cross-cutting communities, so that people are members of multiple communities and interest groups which don't all divide up the same way. Both liberals and conservatives might enjoy sports, for example. Atheists and believers can both get involved with cooking groups. Promoting such "non-denominational" interest groups could be a way to bring these various communities together.
Bad analogy, as you indicate in your NB -- Schelling was writing about geographical segregation, where (A n B) and (B n C) together imply (A n C), and where it is only possible to live in one location at a time. On the internet, however, even with social networking sites, I can spend 55% of my time on one site, and 45% on another, without forcing anyone on either site to do the same. You need a different model.
Hal, Politics would be very good, as we seem very cross cutting there. Religion I'm not so sure - we seem rather similar in that respect.
If we think of this forum as such a cross-cutting interest group, it would suggest that we would benefit from having discussions on politics, religion, and similar controversial subjects. I don't know that we have been too successful at it in the past, but maybe with practice we could get better.
On the internet, however, even with social networking sites, I can spend 55% of my time on one site, and 45% on another, without forcing anyone on either site to do the same. You need a different model.
Indeed, the internet may be our saviour here - but how people move about on the internet bears a lot of ressemblance to how hunter-gatherers look for food (can't find the link), so it may not be that different. But you're right, a new model would be good (though it still may be valid off internet). Anyone know of any new models exploring these phenomena?
The collective problem is harder to solve and we can probably only chip away at the edges. One possibility is to imagine cross-cutting communities, so that people are members of multiple communities and interest groups which don't all divide up the same way. Both liberals and conservatives might enjoy sports, for example. Atheists and believers can both get involved with cooking groups. Promoting such "non-denominational" interest groups could be a way to bring these various communities together.
The more interests, the more diversity, the less clumping, good. But there may still be a risk - replace neighbours with "people I will talk about a subject X with". If X is bias prone, we may still have the same problem; even if I'm meeting lots of other people, I need to talk about X with them. On top of "non-denominational" interest groups, we need to see that people do occasionally chat of the "denomination" issues at these groups - so, probably, the more sociable the interest groups, the better.
When you ask how to deal with such a situation, you can approach it on an individual basis or on a collective basis. Individually, you can try to expose yourself to other "neighborhoods". Visit communities which have different beliefs and customs than your own, so that you are not harmed by constantly being exposed to one set of biases.
The collective problem is harder to solve and we can probably only chip away at the edges. One possibility is to imagine cross-cutting communities, so that people are members of multiple communities and interest groups which don't all divide up the same way. Both liberals and conservatives might enjoy sports, for example. Atheists and believers can both get involved with cooking groups. Promoting such "non-denominational" interest groups could be a way to bring these various communities together.
Bad analogy, as you indicate in your NB -- Schelling was writing about geographical segregation, where (A n B) and (B n C) together imply (A n C), and where it is only possible to live in one location at a time. On the internet, however, even with social networking sites, I can spend 55% of my time on one site, and 45% on another, without forcing anyone on either site to do the same. You need a different model.