6 ms·

There is no feasible way for me to agree more with this. I very much belong to those negatively affected by this phenomenon. I'd wager many a HN commenter is.

There is no feasible way for me to agree more with this. I very much belong to those negatively affected by this phenomenon. I'd wager many a HN commenter is. My RSS feeds are a carefully crafted web of information, as much of a not-echo chamber I can create. From stuff I don't agree with on almost anything - Breitbart and its national counterparts, neocon blogs, libertarian thinktanks - to sources I think of as pretty neutral - like the simple feeds of press conglomerates just feeding headlines - to the stuff I agree with vehemently and thus view as most dubious, I get it all, all day, all the time. Even syndicated across devices. I'm very rarely the one to ask "what are you talking about?" and constantly the one to explain topics. It's okay, being the AP of your social circles isn't the worst role to fill. But it does something to you, doesn't it? I feel like my view of this world has darkened over the years. I'm only thirty years old now and I feel like we're headed for disaster on a dozen different concurrent tracks. My view of man has become shrouded in a perpetual gloom, my idea of a future a cycnical dystopia. I know that isn't fair or true, but it's become increasingly hard to think otherwise.

oarsinsync 10y ago
> But it does something to you, doesn't it? I feel like my view of this world has darkened over the years. I'm only thirty years old now and I feel like we're headed for disaster on a dozen different concurrent tracks. My view of man has become shrouded in a perpetual gloom, my idea of a future a cycnical dystopia. Mirror, is that you? > My RSS feeds are a carefully crafted web of information, as much of a not-echo chamber I can create Can you share this list? I struggle to find myself content that isn't inside my echo chamber, and would appreciate a bigger selection of sources!
- Spellman 10y ago
  Pew did some research on large news outlets and how much different groups trusted them. I'd try sampling from their list a mix of ones you agree with and ones you don't. Especially some of the ones not recognized outside of their echo chamber, like Mother Jones, Breitbart, Daily Kos, Drudge Report, Slate, etc. Link: http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-01/ http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-...
- marrington 10y ago
  I really like memeorandum.com for this. Like Techmeme, its sister site, it groups news stories by topic. You can read all sides. It gives you an excellent overview of how easy it is to put bias into what appears to be objective coverage.
- BOOSTERHIDROGEN 10y ago
  What is important I think how we manage our bias, do you have any tips or sources how to enhanced our bias.
kazagistar 10y ago
I came to the conclusion that the impact I can have on the world is dwarfed by the suffering that keeping up with news causes me; thus, I crafted the opposite type of echo chamber, excluding most news sources. I am much happier now, and can focus on where I feel I can have real positive impact, like our industry.
- oarsinsync 10y ago
  Can you also share the sources you use, to share that alternative approach?
  - grillvogel 10y ago
    sounds like his alternative approach is not having sources at all
wu-ikkyu 10y ago
What practical use do you get out of reading "news" such as: >Breitbart and its national counterparts, neocon blogs, libertarian thinktanks - to sources I think of as pretty neutral - like the simple feeds of press conglomerates just feeding headlines... If you are feeling such crippling despair from consuming this information, why are you consuming it (Assuming you're not a sadist.)? Especially when you said yourself you know it's not true. "News" is often like fast food -- it's made as quickly and cheaply as possible, is highly lacking in nutritional value, and is detrimental to health.
- oarsinsync 10y ago
  If you don't understand the opposing viewpoint, you can't discuss it with those that agree with it. You're reduced to "no, you're wrong", which is the same viewpoint they have. Sticking to places that are skewed towards a similar bias as yourself doesn't help you understand those that have differing views to you. It can be especially important to be able to do this when those people are in your family, in order to keep your family together, rather than letting those viewpoints tear you apart.
  - ashark 10y ago
    Do you enjoy discussing these things with others? If not, I'd suggest stopping. Any good done is probably a drop lost in a rainstorm, and it's not worth any significant amount of harm to your personal happiness, IMO. Now, local politics, where you can really make a difference, may be another matter. But again, if you're not enjoying it or making a fairly serious commitment to changing things for the better, you'll likely be happier just ignoring it. Realizing that following national politics and policy is basically no more valuable to myself or to humanity than keeping up with soap operas was liberating. I'd suggest embracing that view if it's affecting your quality of life. It'll let you dip into it when it's interesting to you, without taking it too seriously or getting stressed out by it. Treat outcomes at anything above the county level like the weather, since it may as well be as far as you're personally concerned, unless you're rich or have the right combo of time+talent+will to make a real difference.
  - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
cylinder 10y ago
I'm the same, but don't have quite an RSS feed. Are you able to share a list of your subscriptions?
- Gruselbauer 10y ago
  Currently offline until the satellite bidirectional dish arrives - yes, that remotely ;) - but once I'm back, I'll gladly share. Gonna comment here again then.
benevol 10y ago
> I feel like we're headed for disaster on a dozen different concurrent tracks. It has become obvious to me that the reason for humankind's problems is the fact that we refuse our spiritual nature (i.e. as in "connecting with the other side during deep meditation"). I believe our future suffering which seems more and more obvious will force us to reconnect with our spiritual nature. And when that finally happens, on a societal level, then our way of "thinking" and acting will profoundly change and we will manage to turn around. But not before, I'm afraid. Edit: Psychedelic substances allow for short-lived breakthroughs on that level, which is probably one of the reasons they were banned by governments from even being researched. And it's also why they are so important.
- initram 10y ago
  >as in "connecting with the other side during deep meditation" The other side of what? (Serious question - I don't understand what you're talking about.)
  - benevol 10y ago
    Of our material nature. We all have a spiritual nature as well, but mostly don't venture to discover it. It adds a very special dimension to an otherwise life with a "meh" appearance. Basically, we are not alone. We can connect with our spiritual guides, get help, etc.
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
My RSS feeds are a carefully crafted web of information Well there's your problem. My suggestion would be to tune out. Get in to some life threatening sport like parachuting or rock climbing or dirt bike riding. We (men especially?) love fear, especially overcoming the real kind. Helps put the pathetic "news" in to perspective, I find anyway. Running and sweating in general help to. Also, don't worry. Our generation isn't the first to live in fear. Our parents lived through The Cold War, and their parents through the very hot wars of WWI & WWII, and before that no modern medice, and the marauding hordes of barbarians, and so on.
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  I'd be hard-pressed to find one that didn't live in fear. Perhaps we can except the ( us - I are a late, nearly cusp) Baby Boomers and the only fear then ( nuclear war ) wasn't a fear any more , once you'd read enough game theory. My folks were silent generation, and images of Detroit and Watts burning, campus unrest and cops bustin' heads at the Chicago convention unnerved them. Not even growing up in WWII prepared them for that.
tomjen3 10y ago
All news have to emphazise fear. It doesn't really matter what part of the spectrum they are on, what they fear is different, sure, but it is the same emotion. Thus you read only the bad thing in the world, and while it is commendable that you want to see all sides, shouldn't that include the good news too? For example how many of your blogs included the fact that the world reduced the number of people living in poverty, a feat that seemed impossible, 3 years ahead of the deadline? That, based on this, we are actively planing to remove the last half, BEFORE 2030? Let me guess, nobody? It is arguably one of the top 3 best humanitarian news ever, but almost nobody knows, because it isn't fear and so doesn't sell. That and also consider getting yourself checked for depression.

oarsinsync 10y ago

> But it does something to you, doesn't it? I feel like my view of this world has darkened over the years. I'm only thirty years old now and I feel like we're headed for disaster on a dozen different concurrent tracks. My view of man has become shrouded in a perpetual gloom, my idea of a future a cycnical dystopia. Mirror, is that you? > My RSS feeds are a carefully crafted web of information, as much of a not-echo chamber I can create Can you share this list? I struggle to find myself content that isn't inside my echo chamber, and would appreciate a bigger selection of sources!

Spellman 10y ago
Pew did some research on large news outlets and how much different groups trusted them. I'd try sampling from their list a mix of ones you agree with and ones you don't. Especially some of the ones not recognized outside of their echo chamber, like Mother Jones, Breitbart, Daily Kos, Drudge Report, Slate, etc. Link: http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-01/ http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-...
marrington 10y ago
I really like memeorandum.com for this. Like Techmeme, its sister site, it groups news stories by topic. You can read all sides. It gives you an excellent overview of how easy it is to put bias into what appears to be objective coverage.
BOOSTERHIDROGEN 10y ago
What is important I think how we manage our bias, do you have any tips or sources how to enhanced our bias.

kazagistar 10y ago

I came to the conclusion that the impact I can have on the world is dwarfed by the suffering that keeping up with news causes me; thus, I crafted the opposite type of echo chamber, excluding most news sources. I am much happier now, and can focus on where I feel I can have real positive impact, like our industry.

oarsinsync 10y ago
Can you also share the sources you use, to share that alternative approach?
- grillvogel 10y ago
  sounds like his alternative approach is not having sources at all

wu-ikkyu 10y ago

What practical use do you get out of reading "news" such as: >Breitbart and its national counterparts, neocon blogs, libertarian thinktanks - to sources I think of as pretty neutral - like the simple feeds of press conglomerates just feeding headlines... If you are feeling such crippling despair from consuming this information, why are you consuming it (Assuming you're not a sadist.)? Especially when you said yourself you know it's not true. "News" is often like fast food -- it's made as quickly and cheaply as possible, is highly lacking in nutritional value, and is detrimental to health.

oarsinsync 10y ago
If you don't understand the opposing viewpoint, you can't discuss it with those that agree with it. You're reduced to "no, you're wrong", which is the same viewpoint they have. Sticking to places that are skewed towards a similar bias as yourself doesn't help you understand those that have differing views to you. It can be especially important to be able to do this when those people are in your family, in order to keep your family together, rather than letting those viewpoints tear you apart.
- ashark 10y ago
  Do you enjoy discussing these things with others? If not, I'd suggest stopping. Any good done is probably a drop lost in a rainstorm, and it's not worth any significant amount of harm to your personal happiness, IMO. Now, local politics, where you can really make a difference, may be another matter. But again, if you're not enjoying it or making a fairly serious commitment to changing things for the better, you'll likely be happier just ignoring it. Realizing that following national politics and policy is basically no more valuable to myself or to humanity than keeping up with soap operas was liberating. I'd suggest embracing that view if it's affecting your quality of life. It'll let you dip into it when it's interesting to you, without taking it too seriously or getting stressed out by it. Treat outcomes at anything above the county level like the weather, since it may as well be as far as you're personally concerned, unless you're rich or have the right combo of time+talent+will to make a real difference.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago

cylinder 10y ago

I'm the same, but don't have quite an RSS feed. Are you able to share a list of your subscriptions?

Gruselbauer 10y ago
Currently offline until the satellite bidirectional dish arrives - yes, that remotely ;) - but once I'm back, I'll gladly share. Gonna comment here again then.

benevol 10y ago

> I feel like we're headed for disaster on a dozen different concurrent tracks. It has become obvious to me that the reason for humankind's problems is the fact that we refuse our spiritual nature (i.e. as in "connecting with the other side during deep meditation"). I believe our future suffering which seems more and more obvious will force us to reconnect with our spiritual nature. And when that finally happens, on a societal level, then our way of "thinking" and acting will profoundly change and we will manage to turn around. But not before, I'm afraid. Edit: Psychedelic substances allow for short-lived breakthroughs on that level, which is probably one of the reasons they were banned by governments from even being researched. And it's also why they are so important.

initram 10y ago
>as in "connecting with the other side during deep meditation" The other side of what? (Serious question - I don't understand what you're talking about.)
- benevol 10y ago
  Of our material nature. We all have a spiritual nature as well, but mostly don't venture to discover it. It adds a very special dimension to an otherwise life with a "meh" appearance. Basically, we are not alone. We can connect with our spiritual guides, get help, etc.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

My RSS feeds are a carefully crafted web of information Well there's your problem. My suggestion would be to tune out. Get in to some life threatening sport like parachuting or rock climbing or dirt bike riding. We (men especially?) love fear, especially overcoming the real kind. Helps put the pathetic "news" in to perspective, I find anyway. Running and sweating in general help to. Also, don't worry. Our generation isn't the first to live in fear. Our parents lived through The Cold War, and their parents through the very hot wars of WWI & WWII, and before that no modern medice, and the marauding hordes of barbarians, and so on.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
I'd be hard-pressed to find one that didn't live in fear. Perhaps we can except the ( us - I are a late, nearly cusp) Baby Boomers and the only fear then ( nuclear war ) wasn't a fear any more , once you'd read enough game theory. My folks were silent generation, and images of Detroit and Watts burning, campus unrest and cops bustin' heads at the Chicago convention unnerved them. Not even growing up in WWII prepared them for that.

tomjen3 10y ago

All news have to emphazise fear. It doesn't really matter what part of the spectrum they are on, what they fear is different, sure, but it is the same emotion. Thus you read only the bad thing in the world, and while it is commendable that you want to see all sides, shouldn't that include the good news too? For example how many of your blogs included the fact that the world reduced the number of people living in poverty, a feat that seemed impossible, 3 years ahead of the deadline? That, based on this, we are actively planing to remove the last half, BEFORE 2030? Let me guess, nobody? It is arguably one of the top 3 best humanitarian news ever, but almost nobody knows, because it isn't fear and so doesn't sell. That and also consider getting yourself checked for depression.