Os Benefícios de Ser Polarizado nas Redes Sociais: Há?
Resumo
A polarização de ideias é um assunto controverso que voltou a ser pauta em diversos cenários principalmente pela onipresença das redes sociais. Geralmente considerada a grande vilã dentro da política mundial e pivô em divergências privadas entre amigos e parentes, a polarização ainda levanta mais dúvidas do que certezas. Apesar de desencadear efeitos colaterais nocivos descritos e comprovados na literatura científica, a polarização de ideias é um fenômeno natural resultado da interação humana e pode ter benefícios. Há inúmeras soluções testadas para mitigar os comportamentos áridos de falta de comunicação e cooperação consequência direta da polarização, mas nada unânime. Realizar uma análise dos agentes, tipos, atributos e mecanismos da polarização pode proporcionar novas reflexões sobre como desenvolver cenários de investigação sobre a dinâmica da cognição nos ambientes das redes sociais.
Referências
Alperstein, N. M. e Alperstein, N. M. (2019). Social movements: our virtual collective consciousness. Celebrity and Mediated Social Connections: Fans, Friends and Followers in the Digital Age, pages 195–222.
Barbosa, S. e Silva, B. (2010). Interação humano-computador. Elsevier Brasil.
Cho, K., Jung, K., Lee, M., Lee, Y., Park, J., e Dreamson, N. (2022). Qualitative approaches to evaluating social media influencers: A case-based literature review. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies, 13(2):119–136.
Chomsky, N. (2002). Media control: The spectacular achievements of propaganda. Seven Stories Press.
Dehaene, S. (2012). Os neurônios da leitura. Porto Alegre: Penso.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships.-new york, ny: Bantam dell, a division of random house.
Greene, J. (2014). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. Penguin.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence.
Inhelder, B., Sinclair, H., e Bovet, M. (2014). Learning and the development of cognition (Psychology revivals). Psychology Press.
Isasi, J. (2021). Análisis de sentimientos en r con ‘syuzhet. Programming Historian en español, 5.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(6):1141.
Jiang, B., Karami, M., Cheng, L., Black, T., e Liu, H. (2021). Mechanisms and attributes of echo chambers in social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05401.
Jockers, M. L. (2015). Syuzhet: Extract sentiment and plot arcs from text. Retrieved October, 21:2015.
Jonas, H. (1985). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. University of Chicago press.
Kellmeyer, P. (2019). Artificial intelligence in basic and clinical neuroscience: opportunities and ethical challenges. Neuroforum, 25(4):241–250.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S. e Meng, J. (2011). Reinforcement of the political self through selective exposure to political messages. Journal of Communication, 61(2):349–368.
Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., e Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in american politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 9:83–110.
Mittereder, J., Carroll, R. S., Frulla, B., e Davies, S. (2022). Exploring the impact of social network density and agent openness on societal polarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of The Computational Social Science Society of the Americas, pages 71–84. Springer.
Mohammad, S. e Turney, P. (2013a). Nrc emotion lexicon, national researc h council of canada. Technical Report, Tech. Rep.
Mohammad, S. M. e Turney, P. D. (2013b). Crowdsourcing a word–emotion association lexicon. Computational intelligence, 29(3):436–465.
Nelimarkka, M., Rancy, J. P., Grygiel, J., e Semaan, B. (2019). (re) design to mitigate political polarization: Reflecting habermas’ ideal communication space in the united states of america and finland. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction, 3(CSCW):1–25.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. penguin UK.
Pimentel, A. P., Schneider, D., De Souza, J., Oliveira, L., e Motta, C. (2018). Evaluation of a collaborative curation platform from the perspective of selective exposure. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), pages 3625–3630. IEEE.
Pimentel, A. P., Schneider, D., Oliveira, L., de Souza, J., Correia, I. A., e Motta, C. (2019). Exploring social validation on a collaborative curation platform. In 2019 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), pages 140–145. IEEE.
Resnick, P., Garrett, R. K., Kriplean, T., Munson, S. A., e Stroud, N. J. (2013). Bursting your (filter) bubble: strategies for promoting diverse exposure. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work companion, pages 95–100.
Shimamura, A. P. (2000). Toward a cognitive neuroscience of metacognition.
Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication theory, 17(3):281–303.
Slater, M. D. (2015). Reinforcing spirals model: Conceptualizing the relationship between media content exposure and the development and maintenance of attitudes. Media psychology, 18(3):370–395.
Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business information review, 34(3):150–160.
Thorson, K. eWells, C. (2016). Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26(3):309–328.
Weeks, B. E., Lane, D. S., Kim, D. H., Lee, S. S., e Kwak, N. (2017). Incidental exposure, selective exposure, and political information sharing: Integrating online exposure patterns and expression on social media. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 22(6):363–379.
Barbosa, S. e Silva, B. (2010). Interação humano-computador. Elsevier Brasil.
Cho, K., Jung, K., Lee, M., Lee, Y., Park, J., e Dreamson, N. (2022). Qualitative approaches to evaluating social media influencers: A case-based literature review. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies, 13(2):119–136.
Chomsky, N. (2002). Media control: The spectacular achievements of propaganda. Seven Stories Press.
Dehaene, S. (2012). Os neurônios da leitura. Porto Alegre: Penso.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships.-new york, ny: Bantam dell, a division of random house.
Greene, J. (2014). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. Penguin.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence.
Inhelder, B., Sinclair, H., e Bovet, M. (2014). Learning and the development of cognition (Psychology revivals). Psychology Press.
Isasi, J. (2021). Análisis de sentimientos en r con ‘syuzhet. Programming Historian en español, 5.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 50(6):1141.
Jiang, B., Karami, M., Cheng, L., Black, T., e Liu, H. (2021). Mechanisms and attributes of echo chambers in social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05401.
Jockers, M. L. (2015). Syuzhet: Extract sentiment and plot arcs from text. Retrieved October, 21:2015.
Jonas, H. (1985). The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. University of Chicago press.
Kellmeyer, P. (2019). Artificial intelligence in basic and clinical neuroscience: opportunities and ethical challenges. Neuroforum, 25(4):241–250.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S. e Meng, J. (2011). Reinforcement of the political self through selective exposure to political messages. Journal of Communication, 61(2):349–368.
Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., e Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in american politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 9:83–110.
Mittereder, J., Carroll, R. S., Frulla, B., e Davies, S. (2022). Exploring the impact of social network density and agent openness on societal polarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of The Computational Social Science Society of the Americas, pages 71–84. Springer.
Mohammad, S. e Turney, P. (2013a). Nrc emotion lexicon, national researc h council of canada. Technical Report, Tech. Rep.
Mohammad, S. M. e Turney, P. D. (2013b). Crowdsourcing a word–emotion association lexicon. Computational intelligence, 29(3):436–465.
Nelimarkka, M., Rancy, J. P., Grygiel, J., e Semaan, B. (2019). (re) design to mitigate political polarization: Reflecting habermas’ ideal communication space in the united states of america and finland. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction, 3(CSCW):1–25.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. penguin UK.
Pimentel, A. P., Schneider, D., De Souza, J., Oliveira, L., e Motta, C. (2018). Evaluation of a collaborative curation platform from the perspective of selective exposure. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), pages 3625–3630. IEEE.
Pimentel, A. P., Schneider, D., Oliveira, L., de Souza, J., Correia, I. A., e Motta, C. (2019). Exploring social validation on a collaborative curation platform. In 2019 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), pages 140–145. IEEE.
Resnick, P., Garrett, R. K., Kriplean, T., Munson, S. A., e Stroud, N. J. (2013). Bursting your (filter) bubble: strategies for promoting diverse exposure. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work companion, pages 95–100.
Shimamura, A. P. (2000). Toward a cognitive neuroscience of metacognition.
Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication theory, 17(3):281–303.
Slater, M. D. (2015). Reinforcing spirals model: Conceptualizing the relationship between media content exposure and the development and maintenance of attitudes. Media psychology, 18(3):370–395.
Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business information review, 34(3):150–160.
Thorson, K. eWells, C. (2016). Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26(3):309–328.
Weeks, B. E., Lane, D. S., Kim, D. H., Lee, S. S., e Kwak, N. (2017). Incidental exposure, selective exposure, and political information sharing: Integrating online exposure patterns and expression on social media. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 22(6):363–379.
Publicado
22/05/2023
Como Citar
PIMENTEL, Ana Paula; DE OLIVEIRA, Eduardo G.; SCHNEIDER, Daniel; MOTTA, Claudia.
Os Benefícios de Ser Polarizado nas Redes Sociais: Há?. In: MINICURSO - SIMPÓSIO BRASILEIRO DE SISTEMAS COLABORATIVOS (SBSC), 18. , 2023, Rio de Janeiro/RJ.
Anais [...].
Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação,
2023
.
p. 98-104.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/sbsc_estendido.2023.229144.
