It is widely believed that bringing parties with differing opinions together to discuss their differences will help both in securing consensus and also in ensuring that this consensus closely approximates the truth. This paper investigates this presumption using two mathematical and computer simulation models. Ultimately, these models show that increased contact can be useful in securing both consensus and truth, but it is not always beneficial in this way. This suggests one should not, without qualification, support policies which increase interpersonal contact if one seeks to improve the epistemic performance of groups.
AbelsonRP1964Mathematical models of the distribution of attitudes under controversy. In: FrederiksenNGulliksenH eds Contributions to Mathematical Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
2.
AschSE1955Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American1935: 315.
3.
BalaVGoyalS1998Learning from neighbours. Review of Economic Studies65: 565621.
4.
BergerRL1981A necessary and sufficient condition for reaching a consensus using DeGroots method. Journal of the American Statistical Association76374: 4158.
5.
ChatterjeeSSenetaE1977Toward consensus: Some convergence theorems on repeated averaging. Journal of Applied Probability14: 8997.
6.
CohenJEHajnalJNewmanCM1986Approaching consensus can be delicate when positions harden. Stochastic Processes and their Applications22: 31522.
7.
DeGrootMH1974Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association69345: 11821.
8.
DeMarzoPMVayanosDZwiebelJ2003Persuasion bias, social influence, and uni-dimensional opinions. Quarterly Journal of Economics1183: 90968.
9.
DouvenIRieglerA2010Extending the Hegselmann-Krause model I. Logic Journal of the IGPL182: 32335.
10.
EllisonGFudenbergD1995Word-of-mouth communication and social learning. Quarterly Journal of Economics1101: 93125.
11.
FrenchJRJ1956A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review633: 18194.
12.
FriedkinNEJohnsenE1999Social influence networks and opinion change. Advances in Group Processes16: 129.
13.
GolubBJacksonMO2010Naive learning in social networks and the wisdom of crowds. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics21: 11249.
14.
GoyalS2007Connections: An Introduction to the Economics of Networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
GrimPReadeCSingerDJ. 2010What you believe travels differently: Network homophily and the contrast between information and infection dynamics. Group for Logic and Formal Semantics Research Report1003.
16.
HarrayF1959A criterion for unanimity in Frenchs theory of social power. In: CartwrightD ed. Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
17.
HartmannSMartiniCSprengerJ2009Consensual decision-making among epistemic peers. Episteme62: 11029.
18.
HegselmannRKrauseU2002Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation53.
19.
HegselmannRKrauseU2006Truth and the cognitive division of labour: First steps toward a computer aided social epistemology. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation93.
20.
HolmePNewmanMEJ2006Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions. Physical Review E74056108: 15.
21.
HongLPageSE2001Problem solving by heterogeneous agents. Journal of Economic Theory97: 12363.
22.
HongLPageSE2004Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences10146: 16,3859.
23.
JacksonMO2008Social and Economic Networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
KrauseU2000A discrete nonlinear and non-autonomous model of consensus formation. In: ElaydiSLadasGPopendaJetal. eds Communications in Difference Equations: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Difference Equations. London: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
25.
LehrerKWagnerC1981Rational Consensus in Science and Society: A Philosophical and Mathematical Study. Dordrecht: Reidel.
26.
LorenzJ2005A stabilization theorem for dynamics of continuous opinions. Physica A355: 21723.
27.
RieglerADouvenI2009Extending the Hegselmann-Krause model III: From single beliefs to complex belief states. Episteme62: 14563.
28.
WinklerRL1968The consensus of subjective probability distributions. Management Science152: B61B75.
29.
ZollmanKJS2007The communication structure of epistemic communities. Philosophy of Science745: 57487.
