3 ms·

Well, that may work but you also need to have intellectual resources to be able to process all the information and see something for what it really is. Also, pe

by harigov 10y ago

Well, that may work but you also need to have intellectual resources to be able to process all the information and see something for what it really is. Also, people serving news are upping the game by using the latest in psychology research to influence us. We need _somebody_ on our side.

return0 10y ago
Hmm, i think its a very difficult task. I think perhaps a useful thing would be to intentionally break the bubbles. Something like an inverse-recommendation engine. E.g. instead of "people who read article X also read Y", you say "people who read X did not read Z". Or if you had access to people's facebook likes (does facebook provide an API?) you could find the most anti-correlated users and recommend each other's liked stuff etc.
- harigov 10y ago
  Isn't what I mentioned sort of similar? It is difficult for sure which is why I am asking for help.
  - return0 10y ago
    I think people in general avoid the other side, and they don't have enough time for that. Thats why i suggest a mix up of sides. That way you read each story once, but as a whole you get exposed to both contexts.
    - harigov 10y ago
      Interesting. I'll keep this in mind.
hga 10y ago
As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding" For a whole bunch of people, letting letting your peers know you hold right of center beliefs is career ending. Those intellectual resources, well, are we rational beings, or rationalizing beings? Long experience suggests to me the bulk of people are the latter, and higher intelligence often just means being better at those rationalizations. Also, people serving news are upping the game by using the latest in psychology research to influence us. You're referring to that field of "science" that's going through a grave confirmation crisis right now? You might say the latest research in the field is that their body of research is suspect....

by harigov 10y ago

return0 10y ago

Hmm, i think its a very difficult task. I think perhaps a useful thing would be to intentionally break the bubbles. Something like an inverse-recommendation engine. E.g. instead of "people who read article X also read Y", you say "people who read X did not read Z". Or if you had access to people's facebook likes (does facebook provide an API?) you could find the most anti-correlated users and recommend each other's liked stuff etc.

harigov 10y ago
Isn't what I mentioned sort of similar? It is difficult for sure which is why I am asking for help.
- return0 10y ago
  I think people in general avoid the other side, and they don't have enough time for that. Thats why i suggest a mix up of sides. That way you read each story once, but as a whole you get exposed to both contexts.
  - harigov 10y ago
    Interesting. I'll keep this in mind.

hga 10y ago

As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding" For a whole bunch of people, letting letting your peers know you hold right of center beliefs is career ending. Those intellectual resources, well, are we rational beings, or rationalizing beings? Long experience suggests to me the bulk of people are the latter, and higher intelligence often just means being better at those rationalizations. Also, people serving news are upping the game by using the latest in psychology research to influence us. You're referring to that field of "science" that's going through a grave confirmation crisis right now? You might say the latest research in the field is that their body of research is suspect....