• Synthesis

• Feedback Cycles

• Dealing with diversity

Talk Less to Strangers: How Homophily Can Improve Collective Decision-Making in Diverse Teams Socially situating NormAN: Standpoints and epistemic diversity in a Bayesian, agent-based model. Member participation in the decision-making of platform cooperatives

Diversity and Social Learning Socially situating NormAN: Standpoints and epistemic diversity in a Bayesian, agent-based model.

In groups where members deliberate with limited information, consensus can emerge where, under complete information, fundamental disagreement would prevail. Using an agent-based model, we explore the factors contributing to group consensus by comparing argumentation styles in two types of groups: agents in groups of advocates communicate arguments for options perceived as personally beneficial. Agents in groups of diplomats do the same but avoid disagreement in that they bring up arguments supporting a second-best option whenever their interaction partner perceives to benefit the least from what the sender finds best. Results show that consensus depends on argumentation style, but also on what members initially perceive as preferred. Diplomats are more likely to form consensus when initial perceptions accurately align with full information preferences, which diverge within the group. Conversely, and perhaps counterintuitively, in the presence of inaccurate initial perceptions, groups of advocates converge while diplomats part in disagreement. Our results imply that the ideal argumentation style must be considered carefully in light of both the desired outcome and the initial information distribution: when conflicting stakes produce a trade-off between consensus and truthful perceptions, polite versus selfish ways of deliberation may produce one or the other outcome, depending on the initial information members are equipped with.

We can place a Habermas-inspired ideal of reasonable debate, represented by diplomatic interlocutors, against a Mouffe-inspired ideal of agonistic debate, represented by vocal advocates. Both camps have arguments going for them and this leads us to ask: which of these strategies is more conducive to achieving an outcome of truthful disagreement or ill-informed consensus?

• Collected during project

• Simulation

No

• Structured

• English

01/01/2023

01/05/2024

Nothing to declare