Escape the echo chamber

https://aeon.co/essays/why-its-as-hard-to-escape-an-echo-chamber-as-it-is-to-flee-a-cult

by kawera • 8 years ago

83 60 8 years ago

aeon.co

hawktheslayer• 8 years ago

To try and escape both pitfalls I attempt to follow Altucher's advice to have less opinions.

https://jamesaltucher.com/2012/12/ten-reasons-i-dont-have-op...

jasonkostempski• 8 years ago

I know I'm not supposed to just say "+1" here, but that was and awesome read. Perfect timing for me, especially J.

kwhitefoot• 8 years ago

I'm probably not supposed to say "Me too" either, but it is good timing for me too.

eksemplar• 8 years ago

Which is a nice thought, but he’s outsourcing his opinions to someone else and betting on them to make the right call. Most people who did that in Syria are now dead or fleeing.

If you’re wealthy this is no problem of course. The wealthier you are, the less opinions you should share or fight for. You can afford this because you can always put your fortune (and yourself) into an available free society with property rights.

If you’re poor however, it only works as long as reason and democracty triumphs in your society. Because nobody will want you if you ever have to flee.

icebraining2• 8 years ago

Rich-shaming for that post was already weird, but pulling the Syrian war is downright bizarre.

Are you saying the Syrians caused the war, and did that by not having enough opinions?

throwaway2041• 8 years ago

His proper title is "Crypto Genius James Altucher"

ozten• 8 years ago

Not sure why, but that font Academica Book Pro vibrates on my screen and is difficult to read. Maybe it's too thin? It is a serif font and looks optimized for print. Firefox and Chrome on Mac.

overloadedArgs• 8 years ago

  Maybe political allegiance has replaced 
  basic reasoning skills.

Not for one second, do I buy into that idea. Not for one second, do I imagine, that because of one election result, that suddenly people have somehow been transformed into anything vastly different throughout the world.

We have phases, where aggregate priciples of interaction change, not unlike shifts in musical taste. Cycles of class and intellectualism, and cycles of low-brow simplicity. Each pole has its own facets and degrees of appeal and attraction. The cycles are an expression of the prevailing winds for the dominant age group.

For the most part, a lot of people clearly thought their vote didn't matter, didn't really care who got elected, developed an opinion that the presidency doesn't matter, and cast the vote that seemed to be biggest joke.

Two other, much smaller, groups of people exist: those that genuinely believe a tiny, weak, incompetant and ineffectual government is a good thing (because substitute teachers aren't as demanding), and those that genuinely want to help, improve the world, and make a difference in benefitting the lives of as many people as possible, starting with those that have the least going for them.

The goof offs, though, voted the most and won. That's it. That's the only thing that happened, and it's not a disaster yet. Let's see if we can keep it that way, and stay on track.

There's some violence and sabotage in the picture too, and all of it stems from an unnecessary war in Iraq that should have never happened. Some of the very real political destabilization on the fringes is essentially blowback and revenge for that debacle. Take a step back, and note the coincidence in timing for each. I'm not sure this stuff will difuse itself. It may simmer on in the background for some time, and might not have any solution, as retaliation tends to fuel a continuity of grudges.

ScottBurson2• 8 years ago

Look at the many stories of people leaving cults and echo chambers. Take, for example, the story of Derek Black in Florida – raised by a neo-Nazi father, and groomed from childhood to be a neo-Nazi leader. Black left the movement by, basically, performing a social reboot. He completely abandoned everything he’d believed in, and spent years building a new belief system from scratch. He immersed himself broadly and open-mindedly in everything he’d missed – pop culture, Arabic literature, the mainstream media, rap – all with an overall attitude of generosity and trust. It was the project of years and a major act of self-reconstruction

This makes it sound like Black undertook this "reboot" on his own, just by reading and listening. That's not how Black himself tells the story:

In 2010, I moved across the state and started college at this little liberal arts college in Florida, which was about three and a half hours from home

Okay, this was one step he did take on his own: he changed his environment. But eventually he started talking to his fellow students.

And I would say, “This is what I believe about I.Q. differences, I have 12 different studies that have been published over the years, here’s the journal that’s put this stuff together, I believe that this is true, that race predicts I.Q. and that there were I.Q. differences in races.” And they would come back with 150 more recent, more well researched studies and explain to me how statistics works and we would go back and forth until I would come to the end of that argument and I’d say, Yes that makes sense, that does not hold together and I’ll remove that from my ideological toolbox but everything else is still there. And we did that over a year or two on one thing after another until I got to a point where I didn’t believe it anymore.

The whole thing (it's a podcast transcript) is worth reading: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/podcasts/the-daily-transc...

jackfraser• 8 years ago

And they would come back with 150 more recent, more well researched studies and explain to me how statistics works

Has anyone actually put this data together in a presentable way? I've only seen things that say the opposite and it would be good to actually have a read of something well-formed that sets the modern progressive case for dealing with this research, beyond simply ignoring it altogether.

3131s• 8 years ago

Tell them that it is completely impossible to set up rigorous controls in a study of ethnicity and intelligence anyway.

The bigger question is why do some people care so much and why are they so focused on ethnicity among many other data points that could be predictive of intelligence. I typically ask these people if some connection between race and intelligence actually existed, is it your intention to change how society is organized or governed somehow? If it is, then there are historical examples of that going badly, and if not, then why is the answer important?

lopmotr9• 8 years ago

I've looked into it a little before and couldn't find anything except research supporting a race-IQ correlation. I've heard rumors of cultural bias in tests but didn't find actual research. There does seem to be an economy factor though because countries with racially similar people tend to have different IQs in relation to their economic performance. I think this is the biggest and most widespread misunderstanding the moderate left (ie not communists) has about the world.

My theory is that people are afraid the general public doesn't have the education or self-discipline necessary to know this information (even if it's wrong!) without turning into violent racists. Black slavery used to be justified by "they're inferior so it's OK to treat them badly", and the left countered the first part of that but not the second. It's entirely possible that they are, on average, inferior intellectually but that doesn't justify abusing them. How can you let that genie out of the bottle though without people making blanket judgments of entire races?

Just in case anyone thinks I'm a white supremacist, it's not whites at the top, it's Asians and Ashkenazi Jews.

nl• 8 years ago

The Atlantic has a pretty good piece about it: https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/arti...

It addresses one specific study, but the arguments are the same.

DataWorker• 8 years ago

Much of published research in all fields is wrong and you shouldn’t trust science to tell you what you should know in your heart and from your own experience. And definitely don’t listen to people like Sam Harris!

Vinnl• 8 years ago

I think in terms of the context of the article, it is true though:

the member should temporarily suspend all her beliefs – in particular whom and what she trusts – and start over again from scratch

That most important one -whom and what to trust- was "rebooted", which allowed Black to be open to those 150 more recent, more well-researched studies, rather than dismissing them as the echo chamber would tell him to do.

(I'm mentioning this because I noticed by myself that I almost dismissed the article due to first encountering this comment, and ended up enjoying it - which is an interesting observation in the context of this article by itself.)

throw2016• 8 years ago

Do we really need 150 pro and opposing studies to understand?

For instance if a society import a minority white population, enslave and oppress them for hundreds of years and then conduct IQ tests to declare they are somehow deficient. How would the rest of the world look at that? Would they simply look at the IQ test results, or have deeper questions?

First people are enslaved and segregated for hundreds of years and just when the courts start enforcing hard fought equality laws in society, economic discrimination takes over via 'free markets' that as an 'outcome' limits access to housing, education, employment, financial services to people who have not had an opportunity to build wealth over generations like the rest. And then resurrect quasi eugenics and go out of the way to try to prove with IQ tests they are somehow deficient.

There is something extremely malicious and insidious about this obsession which fails to recognize others as fully functioning human beings and simply ignores the entirety of history, actions and consequences. And the only reason this can continue uninterrupted for hundreds of years is because in any other context the World would have intervened to stop this kind of sustained assault.

We do not understand fully how the brain works or the dimensions of human intelligence yet many are so confident to build truths and definitive conclusions on top of it.

Even if we for arguments sake accept IQ as some sort of indicator it is dishonest to diminish the impact of environment in the same indicator. As if a seed will thrive whatever the environment. This seems to be a transparently ideological position.

The idea that a rich or middle class upbringing with access to excellent education and resources will somehow produce the same outcomes as a poor family that cannot provide a stable home, proper nutrition, nurturing environment, educational resources and good schools is not logical and cannot be made in good faith.

Yet people with seemingly high IQs continuously make this claim. Suggesting perhaps that IQ is not everything. And maybe we should include tests for prejudice and bigotry in IQ tests that seem to reduce intelligence and promote a irrational mindset.

lopmotr9• 8 years ago

Slavery causes IQ differences? That's a popular but incredibly unsupported claim. White people really have been enslaved and oppressed and bounced back pretty fast. See Jews for instance, or Irish in America, or Slavs, who gave us the word "slave".

In fact, I challenge you to produce any evidence at all for the slavery->IQ hypothesis. It's so ridiculous that young black people have reduced ability to work because their ancestors 5-10 generations ago were forced to work. It's even more ridiculous that the Chinese who were just as oppressed in even more recent past are doing perfectly well now. Maybe oppression only lasts multiple generations when the victims blame another race for it? In that case, we should be working to stop black people from blaming white people. We should be stamping out the idea of "white guilt" because that would be making the problem worse!

gnicholas• 8 years ago

I work in the arena of echo chambers [1] and wrote a piece on the different usage of the terms "filter bubble" and "echo chamber" [2]. Interesting that the author chose "echo chamber", even though "filter bubble" tends to be used more often in academic settings.

1: http://www.readacrosstheaisle.com

2: https://medium.com/@nicklum/the-surprising-difference-betwee...

kristianc• 8 years ago

A social network composed entirely of incredibly smart, obsessive opera fans would deliver all the information I could want about the opera scene, but it would fail to clue me in to the fact that, say, my country had been infested by a rising tide of neo-Nazis.

Except it would. I know no-one that talks about opera (or anything) all of the time, and it's hard to think that a rising tide of neo-Nazis would escape the notice of a group of reasonably educated, establishment liberals.

Much of filter bubble theory as it applies to social media seems to treat humans as unthinking demographic blobs defined entirely by their status and political beliefs, and the bubble as something impenetrable, through which new information about the world cannot pass.

Sure, within groups there is groupthink, and I get the appeal of techno-dystopianism, but I can't accept the idea that this is in any way a new phenomenon, or that we are not more connected to new ideas now than we have ever been.

mercer• 8 years ago

While it's perhaps also true that it's easier now than ever to just remain in a bubble of like-minded people, I sometimes wonder if that maybe misses the point.

Perhaps the problem is not so much lack of access or exposure to new information, but rather that it's information, or 'self marketing' social interaction instead of real, sustained, connection/relation.

Kind of a 'medium is the message' type deal: technology enables/encourages us to relate in ways that involve promotion, lack of day-to-day interaction, increased compartmentalization of our social lives, etc.

For example, one argument against the 'bubble' theory is that a hugely popular site like reddit makes it easier than ever to be exposed to wildly different viewpoints. Not just through the 'all' section, but also by subscribing to various subreddits with a simple click.

But the fact that none of these pieces of text represent people that I know, that I grew up with, that are part of my daily life, that I talk to about my person non-partisan troubles, that I experienced things with, or touched/saw/heard, they're rather abstract.

In fact, they're so abstract that it's even difficult to 'link' their particular messages to each other and form a picture of a person who is more than the contents of that one message + the subreddit we're in.

I definitely feel that both online, and in 'real life', it's not so much the lack of information that is a problem, but rather the lack of real, ongoing relationships with others.

I've seen so many examples of people changing their minds on things simply because of their partner, or close friends, etc. I've seen far right individuals change their views after they sort of accidentally became friends with an immigrant. I've seen extremely conservative Christians change their views on, say, homosexuality because they had a wonderful colleague who was gay. And so on. I've seen much fewer examples of people who 'engaged' with information (books, articles, study, whatever) and made similar changes in their views.

Furthermore, I think we actively hide the effect of relationships on our views, because we want to think that our convictions are reasonable, and well-considered. So if our beliefs change through relationship (and of course information too), we are likely to de-emphasize that. Because it's not exactly 'rational'.

The documentary "Accidental Courtesy" highlights this well, I think. Some of Louis Theroux's stuff also shows this dynamic.

jlebar• 8 years ago

> A social network composed entirely of incredibly smart, obsessive opera fans would deliver all the information I could want about the opera scene, but it would fail to clue me in to the fact that, say, my country had been infested by a rising tide of neo-Nazis.
Except it would.

I dunno. There are a lot of people on this site who think we shouldn't talk about politics, at all, ever.

I guess the fact that we do talk about it is a point in your favor. But it isn't at all inconceivable that there might exist a HN-like site where only strictly "on-topic" conversations are allowed.

barrkel• 8 years ago

it's hard to think that a rising tide of neo-Nazis would escape the notice of a group of reasonably educated, establishment liberals

It's more likely that a bubble of "reasonably educated, establishment liberals" would not understand the grievances of another group of people, and perceive them through the lens of "a rising tide of neo-Nazis", othering them and directly creating conflict, rather than understanding them.

This is how the filter bubble actually works. It's not that the information doesn't come through; it's that it comes through a glass darkly, at high risk of alienation from people holding out-group views.

If, for example, you think that people who don't like change in the social composition of their community are morally wrong for feeling uncomfortable, you're going to push for cultural movements that demonize them. And that makes the problem worse; it amplifies conflict and widens the cracks in society.

There are multiple self-coherent but mutually incoherent views on how society should be structured. As I get older, I find myself feeling less strongly about one view versus another. I am most suspicious of those who believe they have found the one true view; their zeal for change isn't tempered by doubt. No matter which coherent perspective you have, you won't succeed in moving people with other perspectives if you don't acknowledge that their perspectives are also coherent. Your best bet for achieving change is reframing that change within the perspective of those you're trying to convince. Saying that the people you're trying to convince are evil because their view is wrong won't end well.

rapnie3• 8 years ago

Your page has loads of problems! Like: Who are you? Why would I trust you? What's your business model? What's your privacy policy? Code of Ethics? Security? How does it work?

I would not install the app, nor fill in your website forms before anything like that is clear!

Maybe you should interact with The Center for Humane Technology (humanetech.com), because the subject matter is really interesting, and the problem and ways to avoid it need more attention.

rapnie3• 8 years ago

I am getting downvoted, but this is honest feedback. Points for improvement.

icebraining2• 8 years ago

Are you sure you've posted on the right thread? You've probably been downvoted because those questions are either easily answerable or simply don't make sense (what app?).

IIAOPSW• 8 years ago

we get much of our news from Facebook feeds and similar sorts of social media.

I disagree with the premise already. Anyone got data? How many people actually get their news from FB?

And no hn, reddit and other content aggregators are not just as bad. Following topics != following people.

jamesblonde• 8 years ago

I believe that there are even cases of echo chambers for systems software out there. For example, the database community is pretty tight with a center of gravity around Stonebraker (Postgres, Vertica for columnar stores, voltdb for NewSQL dbs). Well, there's a DB out there for OLTP workloads called NDB (MySQL Cluster) and not only is it the fastest in the world (200m transactions/sec on commodity hardware), but it is also GPL-v2 licensed. But, it's completely unknown in the valley. And when evidence is presented about it it, the evidence is ignored and conflated "in echo chambers, other voices are actively undermined"

Reference: http://mikaelronstrom.blogspot.se/2015/03/200m-reads-per-sec...

imartin2k• 8 years ago

Maybe the best article I’ve read on the topic. Too often people use terms like filter bubble or echo chamber and mean different things. Generally, the lack of access to contrarian viewpoints. But that’s rarely the actual problem. If the author is correct, it’s the lack of trust.

This is especially great: “Here’s a basic check: does a community’s belief system actively undermine the trustworthiness of any outsiders who don’t subscribe to its central dogmas? Then it’s probably an echo chamber.”

kazinator• 8 years ago

Notice that the logic of the echo chamber depends on the order in which we encounter the evidence.

That proves it is in fact bad logic; the victims of the echo chamber are not rational to the point of behaving in a logically sound way.

In actual logic, the order among a set of prepositions makes no difference and they can be evaluated in parallel also to the extent that they are independent; there are no side-effects.

If two propositions A and B contradict each other, that one of them you heard first isn't necessarily the true one.

If everyone is working in good faith (mistakes are acknowledged and fixed) then rather chronologically later propositions should be more trustworthy. People who are not willing to replace old propositions with new ones that contradict them are making themselves impervious to the good-faith improvement in understanding.

Escape the echo chamber

Related Stories