Social media can make voters wiser and smarter
In 2013, Nasa published the latest data showing historical trends in Arctic sea ice levels over the last 30 years. Arctic sea ice is one of the strongest indicators of global climate trends, and the data show that sea ice is decreasing rapidly. However, to Nasa’s dismay, conservative pundits and laypeople incorrectly interpreted the figure as showing that sea ice levels were rising.
Social media discussions about these findings only appeared to worsen the problem, as opinions on climate change appeared to become increasingly polarised.
What causes polarisation, and how does it affect beliefs about climate change?
In the last couple of years, many researchers have been blaming increasing polarisation in people’s beliefs about climate change on the process of “biased assimilation,” in which cross-party interactions reinforce partisan bias, and exacerbate animosity.
In our recent study published in the
we found that the opposite is true. We found that bipartisan social media networks significantly increased consensus about climate change — leading nearly 90 per cent of both Republicans and Democrats in the US to agree that Arctic sea ice is in fact decreasing. Not only was polarisation eliminated, but both groups came away with a better understanding of climate trends.
We also were able to identify the source of the problem in earlier studies of social media. The problem comes from the “priming effects” of political imagery. When we used the exact same social media setup that worked so beautifully to eliminate polarisation, but this time included the political party logos (elephant and donkey) on the bottom of the screen, then we found that political polarisation remained strong, and people’s opinions remained inaccurate.
The cause of polarisation is not cross-party communication, but rather communication in a politicised social context. The priming effects of political imagery cause people to become entrenched in their partisan views.
The main recommendation from our study is that cross-party communications can be vastly improved by removing (or reducing) political symbols and partisan logos from social media settings. This is also true for broadcast news in which people discuss climate change. When symbols of partisan identity are removed from the screen, people become much more willing to learn from each other, and as a result, they come to an informed consensus.
Political priming creates emotional arousal and makes social media spaces more entertaining — Anne Frank @BrainyQuote and engaging. It also directly reduces the efficacy of these spaces for facilitating social learning and informational accuracy.
What does this mean for science communicators who want to bring about social change?
Social media networks act as a filter that can shape how people interpret and perceive new information. The good news is that communication networks that are designed to create social influences in the absence of partisan priming can harness social learning to significantly improve crossparty exchange of information. If partisan priming is removed from a social setting, then new information that reaches people as part of their democratic discourse can arrive in a way that can effectively change their minds.
Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter are now starting to take seriously the idea that they might need to design their interfaces in ways that promote improved social learning across the aisles. The challenge they face is that political imagery and contentious interactions are emotionally arousing and highly engaging. In short, they are good for business. The question for the next generation of social media is what these companies should do when what is good for business is not good for democracy.
The latest general election in Afghanistan has provided a new occasion for pundits and experts, once again, to label the country as a lost cause and sound off the major powers to get out as fast as they can. The elections are dismissed as a meaningless charade as fewer than 40 per cent of those eligible exercised their right. Moreover, there are several reports on all kinds of fraudulent practices to affect the outcome.
The current fashionable view would have us believe that Afghanistan would be more comfortable with rule of the Taleban than an ersatz form of democracy imposed by Western powers.
In the year 2000, the Taleban controlled Kabul and pretended to be the legitimate government of Afghanistan. With mediation by Qatar, it had persuaded the Clinton administration in Washington to grant them full diplomatic recognition. President Clinton’s special envoy Bill Richardson had visited Kabul and met with Taleban leader Mullah Omar to finalise the grand bargain.
Minor diplomatic hitches, howevere, prevented the scheme to be completed before the end of the Clinton presidency.
The succeeding administration of President George W Bush did not oppose the deal but wanted to shape its own version. Then came the 9/11 attacks which changed the course of discussions.
Interestingly, Washington policymakers paid no attention to the fact that the Taleban were in meaningful control of no more than half of Afghanistan’s 32 provinces. Also, at that time almost half of the nation’s population had become refugees, mostly in Pakistan and Iran. Despite the fact that the claim of Taleban’s popularity has never been tested in anything resembling an election, we still have pundits who insist that the antediluvian gang is the true representative of the Afghan people.
The ultimate failure of the Taleban experiment was good news for the “Muslim world” and beyond. It showed that Islamist extremism in its various forms, from Khomeinism in Iran to Boko Haram in Nigeria and Daesh in Iraq and Syria will never able to submit to a genuine electoral test in any shape or form.
Those who dismiss the Afghan election because of the low voter turnout forget the fact that it takes a long time for electoral politics to become part of a nation’s culture.
It took Britain and the US 150 years to reach their speed in electoral politics. A Western observer has little difficulty in imagining the geographical distance between London and Kabul but would find it hard to gauge the historic difference in the two societies insofar as politics is concerned. It is a miracle that millions of Afghans seem to have developed a liking for elections and regard the exercise as an efficient means of the decisionmaking process.
If British and American democracies needed 20 to 30 elections to reach their level of maturity, should we not give the Afghans time and space to go through at least 10 elections?
Afghanistan is evolving and we can see that from the issues being raised, speeches made and the debates being conducted. Equally impressive is the level of participation by women both as candidates and as voters. To be sure, the results are unlikely to be commensurate with the energy and commitment of the Afghan women. But a solid foundation has been laid for further progress.
The election campaign also raised a vital issue of the possibility of replacing the presidential system imposed by the US with a parliamentary one. Afghanistan had never had an over-centralised system of government because of its rich religious, ethnic and linguistic diversity which is best reflected by a parliamentary system of government. That reality assumes more importance at a time that the socalled identity politics appears the favorite flavour across the world.
The latest elections will not solve Afghanistan’s problems ranging from tribalism to systemic corruption. But these elections could strengthen institutions that, if made effectively accountable to the people, would be able to shape the policies needed to do so.
The parliamentary election could also be regarded as a dress rehearsal for next year’s presidential election which could speed up Afghanistan’s march towards a better future.
When symbols of partisan identity are removed from the screen, people become more willing to learn.
Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart.
The latest elections will not solve Afghanistan’s problems ranging from tribalism to systemic corruption.
VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THESE COLUMNS DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THOSE OF