Clear's law of recurrence: what it is and how it describes communication

We live in the times of interaction and communication. Technological progress, to which we are inevitably subjected, makes it possible for anyone to access a huge amount of information in just a few seconds. From the comfort of the place where he lives and without much effort.

This fast-paced development has allowed events that take place anywhere on the planet to spread to dizzying speeds, immediately becoming a topic of global knowledge that is very difficult to stay oblivious It is a totally new scenario in the history of humanity, for which its impact on what is relative to the way in which we interpret what surrounds us and the veracity that we can grant to our "knowledge social".

Although it is a question that aroused the curiosity of many philosophers in past times, the historical situation we are living in prompts us to return to them with renewed interest. Therefore, in this article we will address one of the most popular explanatory theories on this point: Clear's law of recurrence.

• Related article: "The 28 types of communication and their characteristics"

What is Clear's law of recurrence?

Ideas, understood as the representation of a phenomenon in subjective terms, have the ability to remain impassive in the face of the passing of time. Those who decide to assume any idea, in their condition as living beings, end up giving in to the inexorable finiteness to which we are all condemned. However, these last beyond the death of those who defend them, as if it were a simple vehicle for provide them with the strength they need to pass from the mouth of the person who pronounces them to the ears of the person who pronounces them. listen.

Ideas can take infinite forms, as well as being made by any of the fabrics that make up human reality: politics, science, religion or any other. Furthermore, they have the power to unite people in any purpose when they align in the same direction, but also to cause the most impassable of chasms between them. This is why it is said that individuals with similar beliefs tend to be attracted or, in any case, become more alike each day as they share time.

Despite the fact that all ideas are worthy of respect as long as they do not harm third parties, there are also some of them that are directly false or that do not fit reality in the best way possible. Sometimes this inaccuracy (deliberate or not) extends its negative influence to people or large groups, who are degraded by stereotype or stigma. This has frequently occurred among people suffering from certain mental health disorders, unfairly labeled by others as violent or irrational.

Another interesting example of this comes from what has recently come to be called fake news (or fake news). These are dubious rumors, or outright lies, that take on veneers of truth by being published in the media recognized or to have been revealed (supposedly) by a person on whom society projects the best expectations.

The most common thing is that a third-party interest (political rivals, close enemies, etc.) ends up being discovered behind them, so the original intention is usually openly malicious.

Certain ideas, good for being fake news or because they stimulate social debate, they are usually the cause of heated discussions in which rarely one of the two parties is willing to abandon their position. And it is that the evidence tells us that the purpose pursued by such dialectical frictions is never reconcile positions to seek a balance between both contenders, but is limited to "achieving the reason". All of this can be explained by the simple fact that they are often vastly separated counterbalances on the spectrum. of opinion on the matter being dealt with, thus minimizing any possibility of persuasion or influence.

Clear's law of recurrence postulates something that is undoubtedly very bad news for the party that opposes the idea. that is debated or discussed, for the end of the scale that would advocate "extirpating" it from the conscience of every human being: the percentage of people who believe in any idea is directly proportional to the number of times it has been repeated over the last year (even though it is false)

Thus, the moment we decide to participate in a discussion with another person whose thinking we judge as "abhorrent," we perpetuate his view of things on the "white canvas" of opinion social.

• You may be interested in: "History of Psychology: authors and main theories"

What significance does this have?

The phenomenon just described, for which there is abundant empirical evidence in the field of social psychology, It is important especially in the Internet age in which we live today. And this is so because the spaces in which debates took place in the past have shifted to a entirely virtual environment, in which most of the interacting subjects are absolute unknown.

This absence of information facilitates the generation of a poisonous attribution for those who say something that offends us, in such a way that the idea on which we disagree extends to the rest of the traits of the person who defends it, which we end up judging in a way that is equivalent to the emotional reaction that their convictions provoke in us.

In situations that occur in "real" life, it is much more likely that, one way or another, we will get to know a little more about who we have in front of us. This makes it easier to effectively persuade the "rival", or for him to convince us with his arguments, especially if we perceive similarities in personality or values. This is diluted in online conversations, since the ignorance and uncertainty that one has regarding the other is "filled in" by means of inferences from what it says, incarnating in it everything bad that we attribute to the naked idea that wields In short: "if he thinks this, it is because, in the absence of more data, he is a bad person."

This means that, in order to maintain reason and uphold the ideas that we consider most valid or ethical, we participate in intense and irreconcilable discussions that increase the "gross" number of times in which the issue we intend to "attack" appears before the eyes of others. As a direct result of this, the percentage of people who believe in it would also increase; since all this (according to the law of Clear's recurrence) is related to its availability and its recurrence.

In short, it follows from this law that attempts to combat beliefs that we judge negatively (pseudosciences, political orientations, etc.) not only result ineffective in the vast majority of cases, but also contribute to their undesired expansion among the population (since they increase availability in the scenario where they are usually used). post). In such a way, without even noticing it, we fed through repetition the terrible monster that we wanted to defeat.

This is one of the mechanisms by which the virality of the fake news or other events of questionable credibility that become popular on the net. This is even more evident in the case of platforms (such as Twitter) that allow viewing the issues that are most talked about at a given time (or trend). topic), because their simple appearance on these lists gives them a certain prestige without the need to delve much deeper into the reason why they are found there.

In conclusion, new technologies are an ideal framework for the dissemination of all kinds of ideas, taking into account that they facilitate an exchange of opinions that is rarely resolved by consensus and that only increases the number of times in which the matter (for better or for worse) is mentioned. With this, finally, the credibility that people give it would also be stimulated.

So how do you combat an idea?

Ideas are abstract entities, that is, they are not found objectively in the reality of those who usually deal with them. In this sense, they are only found in the thought of the human being and become evident to others. through the spoken or written word, this being the only ecosystem in which they are kept with life. Silence is a toxic environment for ideas, since in it they lack nutrients to feed on and related beliefs with which to reproduce. That is, silence is the one who kills them. Slowly, but mercilessly.

If we want to fight against an idea, because we consider it contrary to our most intimate principles and values, the best way to carry out this task is by ignoring it. But not only that, but it will also be necessary to give our deepest convictions a voice, and let them reach the ears of those who wish to hear them. The best of all is that, in this process, any attack that is received will not be more than a valuable ally.