Understanding Group Polarization with Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
You may need an academia.edu account to view/download this.
This podcast documents a good example of group polarization.
Extracted text from http://www.academia.edu:
LOG INSIGN UP We're trying Google Ads to subsidize server costs. If you are logged in, you won't see ads. Hover to learn more.
Understanding Group Polarization with Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks 12 Pages Understanding Group Polarization with Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
UPLOADED BY Carlo Proietti VIEWS 17 CONNECT TO DOWNLOAD GETPDF READ PAPER
Understanding Group Polarization with Bipolar Argumentation Frameworks
DOWNLOAD
Loading Preview
Job BoardAboutPressBlogPeoplePapersTermsPrivacyCopyrightWe're Hiring!Help Center Find new research papers in:PhysicsChemistryBiologyHealth SciencesEcologyEarth SciencesCognitive ScienceMathematicsComputer Science Academia 2016
Extracted text from http://www.radiolab.org:
Radiolab NavigateDonate RADIOLAB PODCAST ARTICLES Seneca, Nebraska Wednesday, October 12, 2016 - 02:00 AM
(Photo Credit: Simon Adler) Podcasts More RECOMMENDED LINKS The Matthew Hansen article that inspired this story: Back in 2014 the town of Seneca, Nebraska was deeply divided. How divided?They were sofed up with each other that some citizens began circulating a petition that proposed a radicalsolution. If a majority wanted to they'd self-destruct, end the town and wipe their community off the map. Producer Simon Adler goes to Seneca toknock on doors and sit down with residents for a series of kitchen table conversations. Along the way, we try to piece together what happened in this tiny town and what its fracture says about America.
Produced and Reported by Simon Adler. Special Thanks to Matthew Hansen of the Omaha World Herald.
TAGS: delta rl democracy election politics storytelling voting MORE IN: Radiolab Podcast Articles Show 31 comments RadiolabTOP Listen Read Watch Search Support Radiolab About
1 comment
Sign in to join the conversation.
I only scanned the article myself (a bit too much formalism for my taste), but have heard similar claims before. The good news is that it tends to work best (worst?) with polarized beliefs and argumentative frameworks. So the key may be to not hold our beliefs too dearly (difficult) and to be nice to people (easier). The latter can be achieved more easily if we can find ways to get to know others personally. For us in BT this usually means working with people we often disagree with on a common task which we generally agree on.