4 ms·
I was nodding a lot reading this piece, but something did seem incongruous. The author claims "peripheral route" opinions are becoming more common because of i
by jackcosgrove 3y ago
I was nodding a lot reading this piece, but something did seem incongruous.
The author claims "peripheral route" opinions are becoming more common because of information overload and the need to be parsimonious when forming opinions. He also claims that peripheral route opinions are more weakly held than central route opinions.
How does that account for increasing ideological polarization, when you would expect people's opinions to shift more with the breeze?
- h2odragon 3y agoI would suggest that the polarization is advantageous to the people shaping public opinion. Sells more soda and antacids. I dont agree its "ideological"; instead it is "tribal". Ideology: "My body my choice" == vaccination and abortion should be individual decisions. "Free speech is good" == people can protest for and against racial separation or elimination, regardless of the race in question. As the tribes we see society dividing into stand on both sides of those two examples, and many others, I can't say I see "ideology" as the dividing factor.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoI thought he kind of addressed that. > This means we can be more easily manipulated through the peripheral route. If we are convinced of something via the peripheral route, a manipulator will be more successful at using the peripheral route once again to alter our initial belief. emphasis mine. So basically, he claims that because peripheral information is more loosely held, peripheral beliefs are also more easily altered. Thus you have the rabbit hole effect leading to "pilling" and extreme beliefs.