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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Synthese (Dordrecht) 2024-06, Vol.203 (6), p.213, Article 213
Hauptverfasser: Peters, Uwe, Quintana, Ignacio Ojea
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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