6 ms·

Also take a look at the feminist movement. A large chunk of them assume that anyone who calls themselves "anti-SJW" is batshit insane and also wants ridiculous

by qu4z-2 10y ago

Also take a look at the feminist movement. A large chunk of them assume that anyone who calls themselves "anti-SJW" is batshit insane and also wants ridiculous things like "muslim-free zones". I doubt such a movement could have popped up without the filter bubble artificially dividing people on the internet. The filter bubble silently manipulates how people think, in a very destructive manner. I agree with you that filter bubbles are a huge problem. I also feel like I see more and more arguments about ... not the facts, but what opinions each named group actually has or endorses. There's so much "THIS ONE IDIOT SHOWS WHAT FEMINISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE" and "TRUMP SUPPORTERS LITERALLY WANT TO <bla>". I don't know how much that's been the case historically and whether it's an increasing trend, but it seems like it happens a lot. My experience has been that there's a lot of reasonable people in most groups, and then a few idiots that ruin it for everyone. How do we mend that gap? How do you persuade people to hang out with people from a group they believe are "batshit insane" or "inherently aggressive" or other rubbish like that?

zyx321 10y ago
It's a positive feedback loop, constantly reinforcing itself. There's an interesting video on this[1]. The gist of it is such: Nothing gets people sharing an idea like anger and fear. And the clickbait "journalists" know it. Yes, there's a lot of reasonable people, but most of them are part of the problem because they don't have the time or motivation to do the research. They see something like "Why Donald Clinton is the next Hitler and must be stopped at all cost" and just share it without even thinking about the other side of it. Can we fix it at all? I'm not sure. The best you can do is distance yourself from the crazy people in "your" camp, encourage your "allies" to give the "enemy" view point a fair consideration and hope for the best. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
- onion2k 10y ago
  Can we fix it at all? A possible solution is actually what most people who use Facebook claim to want - show users everything their friends post in chronological order. At least that way any 'filter bubble' is of your own making.
  - zyx321 10y ago
    Which is never going to happen, because the current system allows Facebook to keep charging companies for continued access to customers they've already engaged.
    - kristianc 10y ago
      My email inbox offers a dumb pipe to companies who have already engaged me to engage me again without filtering. I'll take my chances with the algorithms.
syngrog66 10y ago
thank you for making a non-PC/non-SJW aligned post minor addendum: I do find it amusing that the mainstream mass media discourse does not seem capable of finding any nuanced intermediate point somewhere in between the two extremes of "all Muslims are evil" and "perhaps we should temporarily stop all rubber-stamp-approvals of immigration from Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan/SaudiArabia/etc/". And I'd argue that, despite all his imperfections, Trump's stated position was more closely aligned with the latter than the former. Because... clearly, not all Muslims are evil. The vast majority, clearly by the data, are not evil in any objective sense. Yet, at the same time, by any reasonable adult human's perception there is clearly a phenomenon going on lately where a disproportionate number of humans are metaphorically going "Allah Akhabar!" before hitting their detonate button, whether that's for ISIS or Al Qaeda, etc. We should not discriminate against people purely based on the color of their skin, of course. At the same time, we the citizens of the USA don't somehow inherently "owe" anything else to any other random person in the world, we have not somehow explicitly victimized them by saying, for whatever reasons, "no, sorry, but right now we do not wish you, in particular, to come into our country." We have unemployed people here already, we have sick people here already, we have elderly, we have children, we have debts, we don't somehow inherently owe you anything or need you specifically.
- morgante 10y ago
  > rubber-stamp-approvals of immigration If you think that it's a rubber stamp approval for any Muslim from Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan then you need to get substantially more informed on the issues. I suspect you're in the very filter bubble you decry. Seek out some alternative viewpoints.
  - cronjobber 10y ago
    > I suspect you're in the very filter bubble you decry Looks like filter bubble is going to be the next Dunning-Kruger. That's fine, both beat "oh, you're obviously projecting", if only for relative novelty value.
- qu4z-2 10y ago
  My post wasn't intended to be aligned with any position; if it came across that way I need to get better at communicating. I was intending to point out that people in the opposite camp usually feel fairly similarly. The mass media discourse is, I suspect, bad at middle ground because it turns out reinforcing people's fear and biases sells well. And if it doesn't happen to be true, well, then you get free outrage clicks from everyone else. Even better! To misquote Pirates of the Caribbean: "Fox is the worst news channel I've ever watched!" "Ah, but you have watched it!"
vanderZwan 10y ago
> How do we mend that gap? How do you persuade people to hang out with people from a group they believe are "batshit insane" or "inherently aggressive" or other rubbish like that? I don't know how, but I think one place to start is figuring out how to bypass the actually batshit insane/aggressive ones[0] (on your own side trying to keep you in, and on the other side trying to keep you out), since they effectively are the next barriers you encounter if you actually manage to pop the filter bubble. [0] http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939
wvh 10y ago
You push for true individuality, where people are own agents and don't feel the need to associate (as in mix ones identity instead of subjective taste) with religion, politics, brands or other points of contention. Problem is that those groups have vested interests and human beings are likely too social and irrational to refrain from belonging to "inner circles" and construct inane belief systems. Having a slightly autistic streak might help though, to naturally be less immersed in group-think or feeling the need to belong. We seem to be able to accept differing tastes in for instance food or temperature/weather, so people are capable to disagree on taste without feeling the need to take that difference to an emotional/irrational level and segregate into clans. I guess liking spicy food isn't generally felt to be a crucial defining factor of one's identity... at least to the level of wanting to attack or murder each other.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  > We seem to be able to accept differing tastes in for instance food or temperature/weather, so people are capable to disagree on taste without feeling the need to take that difference to an emotional/irrational level and segregate into clans. I guess liking spicy food isn't generally felt to be a crucial defining factor of one's identity... at least to the level of wanting to attack or murder each other. Unless of course it is about eating animals or not ;)

by qu4z-2 10y ago

zyx321 10y ago

It's a positive feedback loop, constantly reinforcing itself. There's an interesting video on this[1]. The gist of it is such: Nothing gets people sharing an idea like anger and fear. And the clickbait "journalists" know it. Yes, there's a lot of reasonable people, but most of them are part of the problem because they don't have the time or motivation to do the research. They see something like "Why Donald Clinton is the next Hitler and must be stopped at all cost" and just share it without even thinking about the other side of it. Can we fix it at all? I'm not sure. The best you can do is distance yourself from the crazy people in "your" camp, encourage your "allies" to give the "enemy" view point a fair consideration and hope for the best. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

onion2k 10y ago
Can we fix it at all? A possible solution is actually what most people who use Facebook claim to want - show users everything their friends post in chronological order. At least that way any 'filter bubble' is of your own making.
- zyx321 10y ago
  Which is never going to happen, because the current system allows Facebook to keep charging companies for continued access to customers they've already engaged.
  - kristianc 10y ago
    My email inbox offers a dumb pipe to companies who have already engaged me to engage me again without filtering. I'll take my chances with the algorithms.

syngrog66 10y ago

thank you for making a non-PC/non-SJW aligned post minor addendum: I do find it amusing that the mainstream mass media discourse does not seem capable of finding any nuanced intermediate point somewhere in between the two extremes of "all Muslims are evil" and "perhaps we should temporarily stop all rubber-stamp-approvals of immigration from Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan/SaudiArabia/etc/". And I'd argue that, despite all his imperfections, Trump's stated position was more closely aligned with the latter than the former. Because... clearly, not all Muslims are evil. The vast majority, clearly by the data, are not evil in any objective sense. Yet, at the same time, by any reasonable adult human's perception there is clearly a phenomenon going on lately where a disproportionate number of humans are metaphorically going "Allah Akhabar!" before hitting their detonate button, whether that's for ISIS or Al Qaeda, etc. We should not discriminate against people purely based on the color of their skin, of course. At the same time, we the citizens of the USA don't somehow inherently "owe" anything else to any other random person in the world, we have not somehow explicitly victimized them by saying, for whatever reasons, "no, sorry, but right now we do not wish you, in particular, to come into our country." We have unemployed people here already, we have sick people here already, we have elderly, we have children, we have debts, we don't somehow inherently owe you anything or need you specifically.

morgante 10y ago
> rubber-stamp-approvals of immigration If you think that it's a rubber stamp approval for any Muslim from Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan then you need to get substantially more informed on the issues. I suspect you're in the very filter bubble you decry. Seek out some alternative viewpoints.
- cronjobber 10y ago
  > I suspect you're in the very filter bubble you decry Looks like filter bubble is going to be the next Dunning-Kruger. That's fine, both beat "oh, you're obviously projecting", if only for relative novelty value.
qu4z-2 10y ago
My post wasn't intended to be aligned with any position; if it came across that way I need to get better at communicating. I was intending to point out that people in the opposite camp usually feel fairly similarly. The mass media discourse is, I suspect, bad at middle ground because it turns out reinforcing people's fear and biases sells well. And if it doesn't happen to be true, well, then you get free outrage clicks from everyone else. Even better! To misquote Pirates of the Caribbean: "Fox is the worst news channel I've ever watched!" "Ah, but you have watched it!"

vanderZwan 10y ago

> How do we mend that gap? How do you persuade people to hang out with people from a group they believe are "batshit insane" or "inherently aggressive" or other rubbish like that? I don't know how, but I think one place to start is figuring out how to bypass the actually batshit insane/aggressive ones[0] (on your own side trying to keep you in, and on the other side trying to keep you out), since they effectively are the next barriers you encounter if you actually manage to pop the filter bubble. [0] http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939

wvh 10y ago

You push for true individuality, where people are own agents and don't feel the need to associate (as in mix ones identity instead of subjective taste) with religion, politics, brands or other points of contention. Problem is that those groups have vested interests and human beings are likely too social and irrational to refrain from belonging to "inner circles" and construct inane belief systems. Having a slightly autistic streak might help though, to naturally be less immersed in group-think or feeling the need to belong. We seem to be able to accept differing tastes in for instance food or temperature/weather, so people are capable to disagree on taste without feeling the need to take that difference to an emotional/irrational level and segregate into clans. I guess liking spicy food isn't generally felt to be a crucial defining factor of one's identity... at least to the level of wanting to attack or murder each other.

elcapitan 10y ago
> We seem to be able to accept differing tastes in for instance food or temperature/weather, so people are capable to disagree on taste without feeling the need to take that difference to an emotional/irrational level and segregate into clans. I guess liking spicy food isn't generally felt to be a crucial defining factor of one's identity... at least to the level of wanting to attack or murder each other. Unless of course it is about eating animals or not ;)