People are less likely to share opposite opinions and ideas because of the Internet, or so say recent studies. It doesn't take much time or effort to search and find sites, online newspapers and magazines, blogs, and forums which support your views, whatever they may be.
For example, if you believe that global warming is hoax, then there are more than one million sites for you to browse. If you believe that the US government planned the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then there are more than seven million sites which support this notion. The possible effects on future society, government, and human relations are immense.
With little or no debate, imbalanced views and extremism are a direct result. Like-minded people engage in one-sided discussions and never hear opposite opinions. In other words, if a group of people discussed the benefits of the Kyoto Protocol, then almost all who participated in the discussion would support the treaty.
Few arguments would get raised about any possible negative impact. In addition, a person's confidence grows when there aren't persuasive people to disagree. An overabundance of confidence leads to extreme views – a mob mentality, if you will.
Discussions by large groups of like-minded people have the potential for good in the world, though. The Civil Rights Movement in the US and the movement for more equality among men and women all over the world are two examples. But it doesn't take much effort to think of some negatives, such as terrorism, cults, and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. People could band together, and be overconfident and wrong in their views.
Sociologists worry about the harm to society's general welfare. Suspicion of other people whose opinions differ, unjustified rage, and the fragmenting of society are all real concerns. Any adversaries could be viewed as the enemy in a future war of ideals and beliefs.
For example, if you believe that global warming is hoax, then there are more than one million sites for you to browse. If you believe that the US government planned the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then there are more than seven million sites which support this notion. The possible effects on future society, government, and human relations are immense.
With little or no debate, imbalanced views and extremism are a direct result. Like-minded people engage in one-sided discussions and never hear opposite opinions. In other words, if a group of people discussed the benefits of the Kyoto Protocol, then almost all who participated in the discussion would support the treaty.
Few arguments would get raised about any possible negative impact. In addition, a person's confidence grows when there aren't persuasive people to disagree. An overabundance of confidence leads to extreme views – a mob mentality, if you will.
Discussions by large groups of like-minded people have the potential for good in the world, though. The Civil Rights Movement in the US and the movement for more equality among men and women all over the world are two examples. But it doesn't take much effort to think of some negatives, such as terrorism, cults, and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. People could band together, and be overconfident and wrong in their views.
Sociologists worry about the harm to society's general welfare. Suspicion of other people whose opinions differ, unjustified rage, and the fragmenting of society are all real concerns. Any adversaries could be viewed as the enemy in a future war of ideals and beliefs.
