The Sociology of Disinformation

Hello Steemians!

In the last days, I had an idea. I was thinking about the social dynamics of the disinformation and I decided to schematize it in a simple explanation. Yesterday I created a cover for the post, a handmade image that I drew with a pen and I colored on the pc. Do you like it? I hope no, otherwise you would have a serious problem XD

THE DISINFORMATION

This is a real social scourge in the world, which importance has increased in the time of the web and the simpler research activities. Each day, many people fall into the pitfalls built from the disinformation and its diffusion. But what are the consequences?

CASE 1: Sociology and Social Psychology of the Disinformation

We start.

1. It happens the fact X, did by B person.

2. The A person says to the C person it happened the X² fact. The B person is not aware of that.

3. X² is a negative fact.

4. The B person: not being to know about the X² fact, he/she can't say that it happened the X fact and not the X² fact.

5. In the mind of the C person born an idea according to which the B person is GUILTY: that involves the birth of a PREJUDICE towards the B person in the mind of the C person.

6. The C person will start to take action towards the B person, based itself on his/her own prejudice. For example, blaming he/she, avoiding he/she, etcetera.

In the current society, there are 2 principal and immediately detectable consequences. The first is the AMPLIFICATION OF THE PREJUDICE: the C person transmit in the group formed by other people (the society) the erroneous X² fact; a PREJUDICE will born also in the other members of the group and all the members will have the same reaction of the C person (blaming, avoiding, etcetera). The second one is precisely the ISOLATION FROM THE GROUP.

7. /Not Obbligatory/: In the case of which the B person says that X fact happened and not the X² fact (the erroneous fact transmitted by the A person) after the formation of the prejudice in the members of the group, the members of the group they would consider his/her as an attempt to exculpate and not as what really happened.

This is a real problem when people say about facts not really happened. For example, if the X fact is a negative fact for the B person, the process brings to double negative consequences for he/she: the one from the fact itself and the one from the prejudice born in the society.

We see now why also the POSITIVE prejudice is a problem.

CASE 2 - Positive Prejudice: "The Saint"

After the firsts 2 steps, identical in this case too, we reached the third step: this time X² is a POSITIVE FACT.

Also the 4th step is identical, but the things change from the 5th step: in the mind of the C person born an idea according with which the B person is a person to admire or eulogize: this entails the birth of a prejudice towards the B person in the mind of the C person, this time a POSITIVE prejudice.

Why a positive prejudice is also a problem?

THE CONCLUSIONS

Real problem: the prejudice involves that the people that have it take actions towards the B person regardless of his will. They take attitudes towards him free from how he behaves, and even if the attitudes are not hostile, they are still incompatible with his will or the reality of the events that have occurred.

IMPORTANT: the B person, the protagonist involves in the happening of the X fact, suffers the consequences of the wrong transmission of the event X² in any case, not being listened to if the fact X² is positive or if it is negative.

The unique unknown factor responsible for the formation of the prejudice and its consequences is the X² fact and the A person that has divulged it. The X² fact represents the false information that is transmitted in society and all the rest are the effects derived from that wrong information.

I don't know if you liked my post. I hope yes, but I know that I may have been boring.

I thank you and greet you.

To the next!