|
Post by stdang on Apr 26, 2016 4:19:38 GMT
One of the interesting implications for this work for utilizing crowd cognition with technology is in being able to bootstrap some combination of human and non-human data in order to recognize some of the cognitive shortcuts that are typical and to leverage this information to support metacognitive strategies at the individual level to adjust the aggregated output in hopefully a more appropriately representative manner. It seems for certain classes of problems, human cognitive heuristics might be discoverable and hints or nudges might be either suggested or strictly enforced on the workflow in order to manipulate the type of cognitive work that any particular human node in the crowd is performing. This is actually the space that Ideagens was aiming for. By leveraging experts to identify high value ideas as they are generated by the crowd, the interface is designed to allow the facilitators to provide high value alternative approaches mined from minority group members. These ideas are selectively routed to encourage individuals to overcome their individual frames.
|
|
vish
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by vish on Apr 26, 2016 5:12:46 GMT
In your experience, do group deliberations on moral judgements suffer more or less from bias than deliberations on factual questions? Were any of the problems the author identified a factor in that deliberation?
From Barnlund's model, which says that when men are contradicted, attacked, or embarrassed, they try to shield themselves and get defensive. In addition, Barnlund reasons that it is inaccurate to say that different people have different attitudes toward the same thing and we behave according to what we bring to the occasion. Adding, a dogmatic person is more interested in triumph than the truth. All these hold true for moral judgements. Extreme opinions are the core of moral judgements by a group. It is always binary, as in, if the group or an authoritative person thinks that you do not belong to the group, then you are categorised as someone who opposes the group's goal/ideals.
|
|
|
Post by rushil on Apr 26, 2016 5:37:12 GMT
As has been brought up several times in the conversation, group mentality in online communities can sometimes make it insular and the loudest voices in the group are the ones that dictate the direction of the group. It sounds eerily close to day-to-day life. Does this happen in a physically co-located group? Yes. I am sure everyone here has experienced it to some degree + there is evidence in research suggesting the same.
This brings me to an interesting question. There has been a lot of research that focuses on different people assuming different identities online and how they differ from their real personas. I wonder if as a part of a group, do they tend to converge towards their real life persona? Experiment: A group of people who are physically co-located are put into an online community (without the knowledge that the people they are interacting with online are the same as their physical group) and let them assume their own digital identity. It would be interesting to observe the similarities and differences in their individual personas and then the group dynamics.
|
|