Optimal structure of groups under exposure to fake news

Abstract

Humans predominantly form their beliefs based on communication with other humans rather than direct observations, even on matters of facts, such as the shape of the globe or the effects of child vaccinations. Despite the fact that this is a well-known (not to say: trivial) observation, literature on opinion dynamics and opinion formation largely overlooks this circumstance. In the present paper we study the effects of limited access to information on the level of knowledge of members of groups embedded into an environment that can be observed. We also study the consequences of false information circulating within the group. We find that exposure to fake news makes intense communication counterproductive, but, at the same time, calls forth diversification of agents with respect to their information spreading abilities.

Opinion Polarization in Human Communities Can Emerge as a Natural Consequence of Beliefs Being Interrelated

“…I was wrong about that” [ 1 ]. This is a good overview of the surprise that the unprecedented connectivity among people—primarily driven by various internet-based social media platforms in the early 21st century—brought us unprecedented factions, dissension and fake news [ 2 , 3 ], instead of agreement and conciliation [ 4 , 5 ]. The reasons behind these phenomena are diverse and manifold and, accordingly, are the subject of the most diverse scientific fields from history [ 6 ] through sociology [ 7 ] to computational social science [ 8 , 9 , 10 ].…”

Optimal collective decision making: consensus, accuracy and the effects of limited access to information

“… according to the second definition, a group is “optimal”, if its structure promotes fast emergence of consensus, and finally the third one considers a group “optimal” if it promotes both requirements with equal strength. Importantly, as mentioned above, we also take into account the members’ limited access to information—a circumstance which, despite its trivial nature, rarely is incorporated in information-diffusion models 18 , 19 . This means, though tacitly, that individuals are assumed to have full access to the information needed to form the decision.…”

“…Importantly, as mentioned above, we also take into account the members’ limited access to information—a circumstance which, despite its trivial nature, rarely is incorporated in information-diffusion models 18 , 19 . This means, though tacitly, that individuals are assumed to have full access to the information needed to form the decision.…”