According to the lead author, Noah E. Friedkin, professor of sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, a belief system in a group--religious or political, for instance--depends on a set of interlocking beliefs. Known as an opinion dynamics model, it is a collection of attitudes, opinions, certainties, or "cognitive orientation" towards a person or statement. "A person's belief on one subject may be dependent on their beliefs in other issues," he explains. "There's an underlying cognitive consistency that links multiple beliefs."
In the paper, "Network Science on Belief System Dynamics Under Logic Constraints," which appeared in Science, Friedkin and his coauthors extend that opinion dynamics model to cover belief systems composed of interdependent beliefs. As an example, he notes, religion typically consists of an interlocked set of beliefs. If a person believes in a supreme being, he or she also will believe in the Earth's origin story, the supreme being's rules of worship, and so on. Those beliefs are buttressed by people who share them. "If you know how someone feels about one issue, you can pretty much logically infer, on the basis of belief system structure, that they hold certain positions on other issues."
The mathematical model described in the paper addresses two processes. One is the "interpersonal influence system" that helps shape a person's beliefs. The other is what happens when a belief changes, and how it recalibrates a person's beliefs on other, linked issues. "For instance, if you felt strongly about one thing and I can convince you to change your opinion on it, you would go home and, in an internal process, your brain would reorganize your beliefs that depend on the belief that has been changed."
The paper uses the Iraqi War as an example of how beliefs, or "logic structures," function. It notes three statements that underlay the belief that the U.S. preemptive invasion of Iraq was acceptable. One, Saddam Hussein has a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction; two, Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are real and present dangers to the region; and three, a preemptive invasion of Iraq would be a just war.
A "high certainty of belief' in the first statement implied a concomitant certainty in statements two and three, and polling indicated a strong majority of Americans supported the war. However, the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction negated statement one and effectively led to a cascading rejection of statements two and three. "If you don't accept that first premise, then it's difficult to justify or accept the statement that a preemptive war is justified. The cascade of changes occur on multiple issues, and that cascade has a structure to it, which is the logic structure that links a set of issues or beliefs."
Looking ahead, Friedkin indicates that this new mathematical model of opinion dynamics could give sociologists the tools to study overlooked complex issues. "My hope, and the hopes of my collaborators, is that it will trigger more work on this, because the literature and the opinion dynamics have been focused on single-issue dynamics. We hope this article will trigger research on a more complex form of dynamics in which positions on multiple interdependent issues are being modified by influence network processes, and apply it to a variety of different observable cases.
"It's an interesting field," Friedkin observes, "because without a mathematical model you simply cannot predict the destinations of the individuals' opinions, where they end up, because these influences play out in a network structure. With both direct and complex indirect interpersonal influences at play, a mathematical model of the dynamical system is required to provide an explanation."
Jim Logan writes on the social sciences, humanities, and fine arts in the Office of Public Affairs and Communications at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||ON THE COUCH; belief systems|
|Publication:||USA Today (Magazine)|
|Date:||May 1, 2017|
|Previous Article:||Repeal vs. reality.|
|Next Article:||Pres. photogenic.|