Comunicación, neuroplasticidad y polarización en personas de alto nivel académico Communication, neuroplasticity and polarization in highly academic individuals
Barra lateral del artículo
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
La rigidez epistémica en personas con formación avanzada fortalece la polarización. Este estudio explora su relación con la neuroplasticidad y plantea estrategias de comunicación para el diálogo académico. El texto adopta una perspectiva interdisciplinaria con base cualitativa, articulando aportes de las neurociencias cognitivas, la teoría de la comunicación académica y la psicología epistémica. La metodología consistió en un análisis documental y crítico de literatura científica actualizada, seleccionada por su relevancia empírica y teórica en temas como rigidez cognitiva, sesgos epistémicos, tribalismo académico, neuroplasticidad adulta, estrategias de disenso y entornos de deliberación. Las fuentes primarias fueron artículos revisados por pares de alto impacto publicados entre 2018 y 2024, obtenidos de bases académicas como Scopus, Web of Science y Google Scholar. La selección de textos se realizó con criterios de pertinencia temática y validez teórica, privilegiando autores que han trabajado con muestras universitarias o comunidades académicas polarizadas. Además, se integró un enfoque crítico-reflexivo que conecta los hallazgos científicos con escenarios de la vida universitaria real: publicaciones, disputas discursivas, clivajes teóricos y prácticas comunicativas que refuerzan la polarización. No se desarrolló trabajo de campo empírico, dado que el objetivo no fue cuantificar percepciones, sino comprender los mecanismos subyacentes que dificultan el pensamiento dialógico en personas con formación especializada. A lo largo del análisis se incorporan citas puntuales de los autores, con inserción precisa dentro del hilo argumental. No se agregaron fuentes nuevas, cumpliendo el criterio de fidelidad al texto original.
Detalles del artículo
Sección
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Cómo citar
Referencias
Alberto, J., & Regidor, L. (2023). Procrastination as influenced by perfectionism and fear of failure among employees in DepEd - Davao del Norte. International Journal of Research Publications, 121(1).
https://doi.org/10.47119/ijrp1001211320234533
Amosh, H. (2024). Stakeholder theory in elections: Navigating political money, tribal tendencies, ethics, and the dark side of stakeholders. Politics & Policy, 52(4), 828–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12610
Andrieux, P., Leonard, S., Simmering, V., Simmering, M., & Fuller, C. (2024). How cognitive biases influence problematic research methods practices. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 22(1), 01–12.
https://doi.org/10.34190/ejbrm.22.1.3212
Azzopardi, L. (2021). Cognitive biases in search, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3406522.3446023
Baird, C., & Calvard, T. (2018). Epistemic vices in organizations: Knowledge, truth, and unethical conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(1), 263–276.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3897-z
Beddor, B. (2023). Inquiry beyond knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 109(1), 330–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.13042
Campbell, D. (2023). In defense of (some) online echo chambers. Ethics and Information Technology, 25(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09715-9
Feinstein, N., & Baram‐Tsabari, A. (2024). Epistemic networks and the social nature of public engagement with science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 61(9), 2049–2068. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21941
Fitriani, E., Puspita, N., & Yuliari, K. (2023). Cognitive dissonance bias dan overconfidence bias di moderasi financial literacy dalam pengambilan keputusan investasi saham di Kota Kediri. BISEI: Jurnal Bisnis dan Ekonomi Islam, 8(2), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.33752/bisei.v8i2.4006
Hartikainen, I., & Szebeni, Z. (2023). Exclusively our people: Defining tribalism through the Slovak case. East European Politics and Societies and Cultures, 38(1), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/08883254231181070
Hartman‐Caverly, S. (2021). Long tail metaphysics: The epistemic crisis and intellectual freedom. IFLA Journal, 48(3), 449–465.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352211057146
Jiang, J., Lin, F., Liu, J., Liang, M., & Wang, Y. (2023). An ERP study on the certainty of epistemic modality in predictive inference processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77(3), 577–592.
https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231184067
Kirkpatrick, C., Sedley, C., & Gonzalez, R. (2023). Politics, epistemic trust, and the role of the expert. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 8(1), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00479-6
Liu, S., & Chen, C. (2023). Emotional polarization and partisan selective exposure: A mediation analysis in a new media environment. Telematics and Informatics, 81, 102020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2023.102020
Lu, J., Zhao, Y., & Wang, T. (2023). Measuring the rationality of group decision- making in a polarised environment. Group Decision and Negotiation, 32(3), 555–
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-023-09845-5
Medvecky, F. (2023). The hidden epistemology of impact: How research assessments undermine knowledge pluralism. Minerva, 61, 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-023-09477
Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Lajoie, S. P., Di Leo, I., & Chevrier, M. (2021). Emotions, epistemic thinking, and revision of epistemic beliefs during academic discussions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 66, 101997.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.101997
Nguyen, C. T. (2018). Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme, 17(2), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.32
Oh, S. H., Park, H., & Suh, S. (2023). Social polarization in the digital era: Revisiting the role of opinion leaders in online information diffusion. New Media & Society, 25(5), 1164–1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211029240
Palacin, V., Klein, O., & Rosas, J. (2023). Is trust in science associated with epistemic humility and open-mindedness? Evidence from three cross-sectional studies. Public Understanding of Science, 32(7), 823–838.
https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231177043
Pinto, F. D., Mendes, I., Ribeiro, F. N., Magalhães, J., Almeida, J., & Rodrigues, E.
M. (2024). Countering hate speech: Understanding the role of rebuttals and
support messages in mitigating hate propagation. Social Media + Society, 10(1), 1–
https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241231225
Powers, T. M. (2023). An epistemic vice theory of misinformation. Journal of Applied Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12662
Reedy, J., Wells, C., & Gastil, J. (2023). Effects of political deliberation on epistemic humility: Evidence from two deliberative polls. Political Psychology, 44(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12799
Reich, J., & Schneider, J. (2022). The power and limits of rationality: How ideology shapes Americans’ belief updating. Educational Researcher, 51(2), 73–84.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211056211
Roose, H., & De Boeck, L. (2023). Political identity, ideology and polarized trust in science: The role of value systems. Public Understanding of Science, 32(3), 323–
https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221132022
Santos, C. M., & Barros, L. C. (2023). The dynamics of social identity and confirmation bias in polarized political environments. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302231169563
Schwarz, N., Newman, E. J., & Leach, W. (2023). Making the truth stick & the myths fade: Lessons from cognitive psychology. Behavioral Science & Policy, 9(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1353/bsp.2023.0006
Sunstein, C. R. (2022). Polarization and social division: Evidence and remedies. Annual Review of Political Science, 25, 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- polisci-051120-112628
Tetlock, P. E., & Gardner, D. (2015). Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction. Crown Publishing Group.
Van Bavel, J. J., Pereira, A., & West, T. V. (2023). The partisanship-as-perception framework: Reconsidering the role of identity in political cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(2), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.10.006 Weng, L. (2023). Moral outrage and the amplification of opinion: How moral- emotional expressions shape polarization. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231169054
Wenzel, M., & Mummendey, A. (2023). The social psychology of conflict escalation: Revisiting the minimal group paradigm in political settings. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 27(2), 129–144.