I put this in ~news, cause it's a recent article about a recently published paper reviewing the results of a year old experiment. You'll find details in the article. I think it's definitely...
I put this in ~news, cause it's a recent article about a recently published paper reviewing the results of a year old experiment. You'll find details in the article.
I think it's definitely important to talk to people you disagree with. It's easy to be condescending from far away. It's easy to hate from far away. This counts for every human being, and no one is immune to it. I think social media only furthened this with it's echo chambers.
This newspaper recently published another article with a related topic, about a swedish policeman who singlehandedly managed to reintegrate a number of troubled teens who were about to run off to Syria to join the IS. He did this all by simply offering them someone to talk to. A friendly face from a force that for many of those teenagers represented pure malevolence. Sadly that article didn't get translated. Maybe I'll do it myself if someone here wants to read it.
Umm, yes? Elsewhere, in the non-networked world, disputes are usually quelled before they turn into histrionics or drama. Even in cases where A walks into the neighbouring village wielding a panga...
Umm, yes? Elsewhere, in the non-networked world, disputes are usually quelled before they turn into histrionics or drama. Even in cases where A walks into the neighbouring village wielding a panga for bashing B's head in, a few gestures, facial expressions, an occasional giggle from a bystander, and of course simple 1:1 talk, will defuse the great majority of tiffs, misunderstandings, burgeoning vendettas, and so on.
Things like this still require a scientific inquiry, even if they are common knowledge. Besides, knowing this still hasn't stopped humanity from drifting apart through social media.
Things like this still require a scientific inquiry, even if they are common knowledge. Besides, knowing this still hasn't stopped humanity from drifting apart through social media.
Yes, you're right. It just seemed an odd question to ask - by the original article, not you. The phrase gets thrown around a lot, but this really is a 1st-world urban problem from what I know....
Yes, you're right. It just seemed an odd question to ask - by the original article, not you. The phrase gets thrown around a lot, but this really is a 1st-world urban problem from what I know. It's pretty sad, really. I was talking to an american who didn't even know who his neighbours are!
Perhaps the English version was abridged. To put it short: If two people with polarising opinions met and talked, then after the conversation, their opinions grew less extreme. However this only...
Perhaps the English version was abridged.
To put it short: If two people with polarising opinions met and talked, then after the conversation, their opinions grew less extreme. However this only worked if their opinions before the conversation were really polar opposites of each other. The full report in English can be found here (click the link towards the end of the page to download the pdf): https://news.briq-institute.org/de/2019/08/14/deutschland-spricht/
I put this in ~news, cause it's a recent article about a recently published paper reviewing the results of a year old experiment. You'll find details in the article.
I think it's definitely important to talk to people you disagree with. It's easy to be condescending from far away. It's easy to hate from far away. This counts for every human being, and no one is immune to it. I think social media only furthened this with it's echo chambers.
This newspaper recently published another article with a related topic, about a swedish policeman who singlehandedly managed to reintegrate a number of troubled teens who were about to run off to Syria to join the IS. He did this all by simply offering them someone to talk to. A friendly face from a force that for many of those teenagers represented pure malevolence. Sadly that article didn't get translated. Maybe I'll do it myself if someone here wants to read it.
But it's a recent article about a scientific study. I've moved it to ~science.
Umm, yes? Elsewhere, in the non-networked world, disputes are usually quelled before they turn into histrionics or drama. Even in cases where A walks into the neighbouring village wielding a panga for bashing B's head in, a few gestures, facial expressions, an occasional giggle from a bystander, and of course simple 1:1 talk, will defuse the great majority of tiffs, misunderstandings, burgeoning vendettas, and so on.
Things like this still require a scientific inquiry, even if they are common knowledge. Besides, knowing this still hasn't stopped humanity from drifting apart through social media.
Yes, you're right. It just seemed an odd question to ask - by the original article, not you. The phrase gets thrown around a lot, but this really is a 1st-world urban problem from what I know. It's pretty sad, really. I was talking to an american who didn't even know who his neighbours are!
.... But I don't see a description of what she found? The article appears to mostly talk about why the study was performed and not much else.
Perhaps the English version was abridged.
To put it short: If two people with polarising opinions met and talked, then after the conversation, their opinions grew less extreme. However this only worked if their opinions before the conversation were really polar opposites of each other. The full report in English can be found here (click the link towards the end of the page to download the pdf): https://news.briq-institute.org/de/2019/08/14/deutschland-spricht/