Hi, the assymetry lies in my opinion in the concept of message not in the one of information that is a symetrical concept: we receive (or send) a message but we cannot "ask for" a message in strict terms. So, the one who first sends a message can expect that there will be many recepients. This is the assymetrical or heteronomic position. The question is what kind of causality this is as different from a symmetrical or autonomic causality. Peter Fleissner and Wolfgang Hofkirchner put it this way: "actio non est reactio" (http://www.capurro.de/trialog.htm). This is my last message (!) for this week. Rafael
> Hi Guy and Joseph, > > Joseph's observation about media coverage of the H1N1 vaccine touches on > work I'm currently doing in relation to causal structure in stories. In > terms of narrative information, the first piece received seems to act as a > foundation, which constrains all information that comes later on the topic > (perhaps in a similar way to "entry order effects"). It is very difficult > to change the terms of the story once this initial piece has been > established. One reason is, the purpose of that first piece is to identify > what elements of a situation have agency, and in what ways. It tells the > reader what the agents are so they can track causal consequence. > > >> Assuming the sources of this information are the media and certain >> > "experts", one can see the assymetry in terms of responsibility: if the > media are right to be negative, they look prescient; if they are wrong, > and all goes well, as appears to be the case, no one cares and their role > in propagating the information is quickly overlooked, if not forgotten. > If, however, the media information had been neutral or positive, i.e. > there was no reason to be alarmed, they might be attacked legally if a > flu pandemic occurred. Negative information "sells" better than positive > information. > > This seems to me to be related to the way stories identify agency. As > Joseph has noted in the above case, not much agency is attributed to not > vaccinating (when in fact inaction could be disastrous). This may be > because agency was first identified in terms of the negative effects of > the vaccine. In order to change the notion of which elements are agents, > you'd have to renegotiate the terms of the discussion, which is too > complex for the news genre. > > There may also be a problem in that in this case, causal consequence is > easier to identify in the don't-vaccinate story. It is easier to point to > the victim of a bad vaccination than to see the direct impact of > distributed lack of immunity in the community. It is more difficult to > link the consequence of not doing anything to an identifiable person or > victim. Again, the second type of agency doesn't lend itself well to > representation in simple story structures, such as those in the news > genre. > > So from my perspective, the asymmetry is in terms of causal roles and > information, which then determine whether something is seen to be positive > or negative information. > > Cheers, > > Beth. > > > >> Hi Joseph, >> >> This is an interesting topic having to do specifically with the way humans >> process and weigh the validity of socially transmitted information. I >> would like to add "entry order effects" to the positive/negative bias you >> describe. I personally view cognition as a process that generates and >> relies on heuristic models, which are generally prone to entry order >> effects. In this context I think we tend to attribute validity to ideas >> or claims that we encounter first. The validity-bar is raised for >> subsequently encountered alternatives. Neither of these biases seem to >> reflect natural probabilities, although I can imagine that they might have >> had (still have?) selective value for our ancestors. >> >> Regards, >> >> Guy >> >> >> on 11/12/09 9:26 AM, Joseph Brenner at [email protected] wrote: >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Here is a possible, and timely, FIS discussion topic: >> >> The refusal of large numbers of people, especially health professionals, >> to be vaccinated against H1/N1 flu poses the question of the information, >> if any, on which they base this decision. >> >> If one goes back to the beginning of the epidemic, one notes several >> systems of highly negative (frightening) information: the new flu might be >> extremely dangerous; the pharmaceutical industry will be unable to produce >> a vaccine; even if it does, it will be dangerous because not tested >> sufficiently for profit reasons. >> >> Assuming the sources of this information are the media and certain >> "experts", one can see the assymetry in terms of responsibility: if the >> media are right to be negative, they look prescient; if they are wrong, >> and all goes well, as appears to be the case, no one cares and their role >> in propagating the information is quickly overlooked, if not forgotten. >> If, however, the media information had been neutral or positive, i.e. >> there was no reason to be alarmed, they might be attacked legally if a flu >> pandemic occurred. Negative information "sells" better than positive >> information. >> >> The really frightening result of the original negative information, >> however, is that it seems to override the current positive information, >> statements by Ministers of Health, etc: people don't get vaccinated, and >> the pandemic becomes more probable! >> >> My questions are to what extent has the theory of value-laden information >> and this kind of dynamic been studied and what kind of public discussion >> of it is desirable and possible? I look forward to comments. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Joseph >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fis mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > [email protected] > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > -- Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Germany Director, Steinbeis-Transfer-Institute Information Ethics (STI-IE), Germany Information Ethics Senior Fellow, 2009-2010, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA Distinguished Researcher in Information Ethics, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA Postal Address: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany E-Mail: [email protected] Voice: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21) Homepage: www.capurro.de STI-IE: http://sti-ie.de ICIE: http://icie.zkm.de IRIE: http://www.i-r-i-e.net _______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
