The idea of a service to change opinions
I was allowed to write while :) and as promised The first post I will write down this story here.
Almost every person who is interested in a particular field - especially politics, has his own opinion about every event taking place. But this opinion is often formed from outside, and in most cases the victim does not even suspect it. That is, “his” opinion depends on whose PR manager or advertiser gets to his attention earlier? or later? .. Recent examples are an assessment of the work of the former president - if you are a reader of the pro-government media, you will probably think that you live in a country where the best weapons, population welfare, etc., and all this are HIS merit, if you read the opposition press (or the Internet) - you probably live in a poor, needy country, and this is also HIS merit.
It was a preamble.
And now ambula. I propose to create a service in comparison to changing a person’s point of view on a problem within a few minutes - to let him read information about this event under different (opposite) sauces. That is, some actual event is set and specialists form two opposing assessments of its description (this is a task and training for PRschiki). The user selecting the event of interest to him receives the first description of the event, reads it and writes his comment (or at least chooses whether he agrees or not). Then he gets the second, opposite in fact description of the event and writes a comment. If it does not agree with the second statement, another description of the same character is given, etc. until you get bored or convince. It is very likely that he purely psychologically does not want to change his first opinion, but this is not necessary. The task of the service is to track which (negative or positive) version he received first and what reaction he had as a result. This will provide an opportunity to fix - which is better: have time to bring the information in your interpretation first, or then change your opinion on your own.
Another variant is simpler: some event is selected and in two parallel columns (±) users try to argue whether it is good or not and attempt to convince the other side, as a competition. And below there will be a scale of ratings of other users - in which direction they lean. It will be a good practice for lawyers, advertisers, merchants and the like (especially future ones). Yes, and users should be interesting. There is always a person who says that the snow is black, simply because he is used to BEING AGAINST. Surely everyone had to meet such people.
This was the actual description of the proposed project.
1. I would like to know your opinion on it.
2. I would like to conduct a kind of public opinion study (this message was the basis for it), but in order not to mix different things, I will try to bring it into a separate message. I will give the link in addition.
Almost every person who is interested in a particular field - especially politics, has his own opinion about every event taking place. But this opinion is often formed from outside, and in most cases the victim does not even suspect it. That is, “his” opinion depends on whose PR manager or advertiser gets to his attention earlier? or later? .. Recent examples are an assessment of the work of the former president - if you are a reader of the pro-government media, you will probably think that you live in a country where the best weapons, population welfare, etc., and all this are HIS merit, if you read the opposition press (or the Internet) - you probably live in a poor, needy country, and this is also HIS merit.
It was a preamble.
And now ambula. I propose to create a service in comparison to changing a person’s point of view on a problem within a few minutes - to let him read information about this event under different (opposite) sauces. That is, some actual event is set and specialists form two opposing assessments of its description (this is a task and training for PRschiki). The user selecting the event of interest to him receives the first description of the event, reads it and writes his comment (or at least chooses whether he agrees or not). Then he gets the second, opposite in fact description of the event and writes a comment. If it does not agree with the second statement, another description of the same character is given, etc. until you get bored or convince. It is very likely that he purely psychologically does not want to change his first opinion, but this is not necessary. The task of the service is to track which (negative or positive) version he received first and what reaction he had as a result. This will provide an opportunity to fix - which is better: have time to bring the information in your interpretation first, or then change your opinion on your own.
Another variant is simpler: some event is selected and in two parallel columns (±) users try to argue whether it is good or not and attempt to convince the other side, as a competition. And below there will be a scale of ratings of other users - in which direction they lean. It will be a good practice for lawyers, advertisers, merchants and the like (especially future ones). Yes, and users should be interesting. There is always a person who says that the snow is black, simply because he is used to BEING AGAINST. Surely everyone had to meet such people.
This was the actual description of the proposed project.
1. I would like to know your opinion on it.
2. I would like to conduct a kind of public opinion study (this message was the basis for it), but in order not to mix different things, I will try to bring it into a separate message. I will give the link in addition.
')
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/26085/
All Articles