Are generics and negativity about social groups common on social media? A comparative analysis of Twitter (X) data
Many philosophers hold that generics (i.e., unquantified generalizations) are pervasive in communication and that when they are about social groups, this may offend and polarize people because generics gloss over variations between individuals. Generics about social groups might be particularly comm...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Synthese (Dordrecht) 2024-06, Vol.203 (6), p.213, Article 213 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 213 |
container_title | Synthese (Dordrecht) |
container_volume | 203 |
creator | Peters, Uwe Quintana, Ignacio Ojea |
description | Many philosophers hold that generics (i.e., unquantified generalizations) are pervasive in communication and that when they are about social groups, this may offend and polarize people because generics gloss over variations between individuals. Generics about social groups might be particularly common on Twitter (X). This remains unexplored, however. Using machine learning (ML) techniques, we therefore developed an automatic classifier for social generics, applied it to 1.1 million tweets about people, and analyzed the tweets. While it is often suggested that generics are ubiquitous in everyday communication, we found that most tweets (78%) about people contained no generics. However, tweets with generics received more “likes” and retweets. Furthermore, while recent psychological research may lead to the prediction that tweets with generics about political groups are more common than tweets with generics about ethnic groups, we found the opposite. However, consistent with recent claims that political animosity is less constrained by social norms than animosity against gender and ethnic groups, negative tweets with generics about political groups were significantly more prevalent and retweeted than negative tweets about ethnic groups. Our study provides the first ML-based insights into the use and impact of social generics on Twitter. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11229-024-04639-3 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_3067102773</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3067102773</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-d2eabd226f072a177558dc8a6b20123b29c7d0c3de8fa489898a9c7f39a745b53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UE1LxDAQDaLguvoHPAW86KGaj7ZpT7IsfsGClxW8hWmaliy7TU1SZf-9qV3Qk8zADG_eewwPoUtKbikh4s5TyliZEJYmJM15mfAjNKOZ4Akp8_T4z36KzrzfEEJpnpIZcguncas77YzyGLoad7qFYD5N2GOo7BCwt8rAFrfODr3Hyu52tsOxD_hO1wbu8WK89OBGrY5GsN1747Ft8PrLhKAdvn6_wTUEOEcnDWy9vjjMOXp7fFgvn5PV69PLcrFKFKdpSGqmoaoZyxsiGFAhsqyoVQF5xQhlvGKlEjVRvNZFA2lRxoIINbwEkWZVxufoavLtnf0YtA9yYwcXH_OSk1xQwoTgkcUmlnLWe6cb2TuzA7eXlMgxWzllK2O28idbOYr4JPKR3LXa_Vr_o_oG-5V8tg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3067102773</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Are generics and negativity about social groups common on social media? A comparative analysis of Twitter (X) data</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Peters, Uwe ; Quintana, Ignacio Ojea</creator><creatorcontrib>Peters, Uwe ; Quintana, Ignacio Ojea</creatorcontrib><description>Many philosophers hold that generics (i.e., unquantified generalizations) are pervasive in communication and that when they are about social groups, this may offend and polarize people because generics gloss over variations between individuals. Generics about social groups might be particularly common on Twitter (X). This remains unexplored, however. Using machine learning (ML) techniques, we therefore developed an automatic classifier for social generics, applied it to 1.1 million tweets about people, and analyzed the tweets. While it is often suggested that generics are ubiquitous in everyday communication, we found that most tweets (78%) about people contained no generics. However, tweets with generics received more “likes” and retweets. Furthermore, while recent psychological research may lead to the prediction that tweets with generics about political groups are more common than tweets with generics about ethnic groups, we found the opposite. However, consistent with recent claims that political animosity is less constrained by social norms than animosity against gender and ethnic groups, negative tweets with generics about political groups were significantly more prevalent and retweeted than negative tweets about ethnic groups. Our study provides the first ML-based insights into the use and impact of social generics on Twitter.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1573-0964</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0039-7857</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-0964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11229-024-04639-3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Comparative analysis ; Computer mediated communication ; Data collection ; Education ; Epistemology ; Individual differences ; Interest groups ; Logic ; Machine learning ; Metaphysics ; Minority & ethnic groups ; Original Research ; Philosophy ; Philosophy of Language ; Philosophy of Science ; Politics ; Social media</subject><ispartof>Synthese (Dordrecht), 2024-06, Vol.203 (6), p.213, Article 213</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2024</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-d2eabd226f072a177558dc8a6b20123b29c7d0c3de8fa489898a9c7f39a745b53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11229-024-04639-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11229-024-04639-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Peters, Uwe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quintana, Ignacio Ojea</creatorcontrib><title>Are generics and negativity about social groups common on social media? A comparative analysis of Twitter (X) data</title><title>Synthese (Dordrecht)</title><addtitle>Synthese</addtitle><description>Many philosophers hold that generics (i.e., unquantified generalizations) are pervasive in communication and that when they are about social groups, this may offend and polarize people because generics gloss over variations between individuals. Generics about social groups might be particularly common on Twitter (X). This remains unexplored, however. Using machine learning (ML) techniques, we therefore developed an automatic classifier for social generics, applied it to 1.1 million tweets about people, and analyzed the tweets. While it is often suggested that generics are ubiquitous in everyday communication, we found that most tweets (78%) about people contained no generics. However, tweets with generics received more “likes” and retweets. Furthermore, while recent psychological research may lead to the prediction that tweets with generics about political groups are more common than tweets with generics about ethnic groups, we found the opposite. However, consistent with recent claims that political animosity is less constrained by social norms than animosity against gender and ethnic groups, negative tweets with generics about political groups were significantly more prevalent and retweeted than negative tweets about ethnic groups. Our study provides the first ML-based insights into the use and impact of social generics on Twitter.</description><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Computer mediated communication</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>Individual differences</subject><subject>Interest groups</subject><subject>Logic</subject><subject>Machine learning</subject><subject>Metaphysics</subject><subject>Minority & ethnic groups</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of Language</subject><subject>Philosophy of Science</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Social media</subject><issn>1573-0964</issn><issn>0039-7857</issn><issn>1573-0964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UE1LxDAQDaLguvoHPAW86KGaj7ZpT7IsfsGClxW8hWmaliy7TU1SZf-9qV3Qk8zADG_eewwPoUtKbikh4s5TyliZEJYmJM15mfAjNKOZ4Akp8_T4z36KzrzfEEJpnpIZcguncas77YzyGLoad7qFYD5N2GOo7BCwt8rAFrfODr3Hyu52tsOxD_hO1wbu8WK89OBGrY5GsN1747Ft8PrLhKAdvn6_wTUEOEcnDWy9vjjMOXp7fFgvn5PV69PLcrFKFKdpSGqmoaoZyxsiGFAhsqyoVQF5xQhlvGKlEjVRvNZFA2lRxoIINbwEkWZVxufoavLtnf0YtA9yYwcXH_OSk1xQwoTgkcUmlnLWe6cb2TuzA7eXlMgxWzllK2O28idbOYr4JPKR3LXa_Vr_o_oG-5V8tg</recordid><startdate>20240612</startdate><enddate>20240612</enddate><creator>Peters, Uwe</creator><creator>Quintana, Ignacio Ojea</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20240612</creationdate><title>Are generics and negativity about social groups common on social media? A comparative analysis of Twitter (X) data</title><author>Peters, Uwe ; Quintana, Ignacio Ojea</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c314t-d2eabd226f072a177558dc8a6b20123b29c7d0c3de8fa489898a9c7f39a745b53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Computer mediated communication</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>Individual differences</topic><topic>Interest groups</topic><topic>Logic</topic><topic>Machine learning</topic><topic>Metaphysics</topic><topic>Minority & ethnic groups</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of Language</topic><topic>Philosophy of Science</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Social media</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Peters, Uwe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quintana, Ignacio Ojea</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Synthese (Dordrecht)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Peters, Uwe</au><au>Quintana, Ignacio Ojea</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Are generics and negativity about social groups common on social media? A comparative analysis of Twitter (X) data</atitle><jtitle>Synthese (Dordrecht)</jtitle><stitle>Synthese</stitle><date>2024-06-12</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>203</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>213</spage><pages>213-</pages><artnum>213</artnum><issn>1573-0964</issn><issn>0039-7857</issn><eissn>1573-0964</eissn><abstract>Many philosophers hold that generics (i.e., unquantified generalizations) are pervasive in communication and that when they are about social groups, this may offend and polarize people because generics gloss over variations between individuals. Generics about social groups might be particularly common on Twitter (X). This remains unexplored, however. Using machine learning (ML) techniques, we therefore developed an automatic classifier for social generics, applied it to 1.1 million tweets about people, and analyzed the tweets. While it is often suggested that generics are ubiquitous in everyday communication, we found that most tweets (78%) about people contained no generics. However, tweets with generics received more “likes” and retweets. Furthermore, while recent psychological research may lead to the prediction that tweets with generics about political groups are more common than tweets with generics about ethnic groups, we found the opposite. However, consistent with recent claims that political animosity is less constrained by social norms than animosity against gender and ethnic groups, negative tweets with generics about political groups were significantly more prevalent and retweeted than negative tweets about ethnic groups. Our study provides the first ML-based insights into the use and impact of social generics on Twitter.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s11229-024-04639-3</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1573-0964 |
ispartof | Synthese (Dordrecht), 2024-06, Vol.203 (6), p.213, Article 213 |
issn | 1573-0964 0039-7857 1573-0964 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_3067102773 |
source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Comparative analysis Computer mediated communication Data collection Education Epistemology Individual differences Interest groups Logic Machine learning Metaphysics Minority & ethnic groups Original Research Philosophy Philosophy of Language Philosophy of Science Politics Social media |
title | Are generics and negativity about social groups common on social media? A comparative analysis of Twitter (X) data |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T20%3A35%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Are%20generics%20and%20negativity%20about%20social%20groups%20common%20on%20social%20media?%20A%20comparative%20analysis%20of%20Twitter%20(X)%20data&rft.jtitle=Synthese%20(Dordrecht)&rft.au=Peters,%20Uwe&rft.date=2024-06-12&rft.volume=203&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=213&rft.pages=213-&rft.artnum=213&rft.issn=1573-0964&rft.eissn=1573-0964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11229-024-04639-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3067102773%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3067102773&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |