Problem with two Polis clusters
@nishio: honestly, I'd like the option to split into 3 or more clusters, as it's not fun to have 2 clusters teramotodaiki I guess it depends on how dimensional compression and clustering is done, whether there are 2 or 3 groups in pol.is. I don't know if it can be changed in the settings, but in principle it seems like you could do something like "make it more than three"?
nishio You can do it in principle. nishio They're divided into four groups. It seems that among those in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, there's a split on how to make that happen. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ft99XeQakAAZbqG?format=jpg&name=medium#.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ft-CwveakAAlw1I?format=jpg&name=medium#.png
thereafter
tokoroten From my point of view, I only see one group, but as the number of people has increased, it seems like the clusters have become connected? nishio I doubt it will ever lead to one. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuA30kBaMAAAgKN?format=jpg&name=medium#.png
tokoroten Oh, sorry, I meant to say I only see two. nishio Oh, I mean in that sense, more people got merged. And the two groups have become like "A and not A" and I thought it wasn't interesting. Whether it will become more interesting in the future with the new cut, or whether it's better to re-create it because there's nothing we can do when it's in this state is unknown. tokoroten In the first place, we ourselves have been rolled up by the ruling party and the opposition party by the election, and as a result, even if the issue is complex, we recognize it as A,not A. I got the idea that maybe we're all just thinking "A,not A". The hypothesis that the two-party electoral system keeps us on one axis.
> Voting by Election
> Voting acts as a declarative effect
→Thinking becomes uniaxial
I'm thinking something rather like this is happening.
nishio Some people may be so imprinted with the political messages of opposing parties that they become shrink-wrapped in one-dimensional oppositional thinking, and in the first place, cognitive Many people may have too little ability to recognize only good/bad dichotomies. nishio The case observed this time was "Too many irrelevant questions.!" was interesting. I couldn't recognize it and tried to cut off the irrelevant questions, even though it was just "I subjectively don't see the relationship" because other people were adding them because they thought they were relevant. Do that and it falls down to a simple composition. If we use statements on social networking sites immediately after a shocking incident that is highly current as material, it becomes a "visualization of the division of people".
Perhaps the original use is to exclude extreme opinions and visualize "reasonable multiple opinions".
---
relevance
Plural Viewpoints: Three different personalities of the AI describe the theme from three different viewpoints by expressing their approval or disapproval of the theme. Derived from pMAGI's idea of dividing Polis into three separate virtual personalities because it is not interesting if Polis is divided into two. ---
2024-10-20
Concerns at the time of the public opinion map release
2024-10-29
I was concerned that more votes would converge on the dichotomy.
In fact, three cases were dichotomous, three were more than that, and were resolved negatively by the data.
Maybe this means that even if the opinion distribution is ultimately dichotomous, it can break up into fine clusters during the ~100 or so cases, and when it does break up into fine clusters, the impression is so strong that when it finally disappears, the disappointment that it has become a dichotomy is stronger.
---
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/Polisクラスタ2つになる問題 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.