19 ms·

Social perception bias might be an emergent property of our social networks

153 points by BerislavLopac 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
darkkindness 7y ago
In other words, "our social networks" tend to have mostly like-minded people influence us, so increasing the diversity of these incoming opinions can counter bias. I'm a fan of this particular explanation: https://ncase.me/crowds/ https://ncase.me/crowds/
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  That doesn't necessarily follow with self-selection. One group's presense may push out another, others usually do have disproportionate influence on overall bias.
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
So, given this conclusion and resolving this is to meet a diverse amount of people: How do we meet a diverse group of people?
- brlewis 7y ago
  I don't have personal experience with this organization, but it's one I've heard of for bringing diverse viewpoints together: https://www.livingroomconversations.org/ https://www.livingroomconversations.org/
- thundergolfer 7y ago
  Moving to a major city is an obvious one. They are the most socio-economically and ethnically diverse places.
- klyrs 7y ago
  > How do we meet a diverse group of people? I went to an inner-city high school, which was fairly well integrated. I took a mix of honors and regular classes. Much of my extended family consists of evangelical conservatives. Through this lens, I saw the reality of segregation in my state, city, and school. I listen more than I talk, and tend to answer with questions rather than opinions. As an adult my filter bubble has shrunk drastically and most people I know are quite like-minded. I didn't just predict Trump winning very early in the game; I was the only person in my filter bubble who wasn't completely blindsided by his victory. So my answer is race/class integrated public schooling with forced bussing and limits on regular/honors/AP classes (eg, nobody can take more than 60% in any given track). But of course that's highly biased by my single anecdote.
Mediterraneo10 7y ago
Do social networks have a business case to diversify the connections of people on it? If people are encouraged to adhere to a limited number of affiliations and be firm in that group identity, then doesn’t that make it easier for advertisers to target them?
- yorwba 7y ago
  If you're open to connecting with new people, it's easier to introduce you to someone who's really into product X and recommends it to all their friends.
- everdev 7y ago
  > If people are encouraged to adhere to a limited number of affiliations and be firm in that group identity, then doesn’t that make it easier for advertisers to target them? I think so. If I sell motorcycles and I only have enough budget to show ads to one cohort and have two options: A) a person who likes motorcycles but has no / very few friends who like motorcycles (presumably a diverse group) B) a person who likes motorcycles and all their friends like motorcycles (a firm group identity) I'm picking group B. If I'm successful in selling them a motorcycle, it's free advertising to many more eligible buyers. Plus, even if I'm not there's a chance they might talk about my ad if it's memorable enough and spread via word of mouth.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  I would guess two work are two good things cross-purpose a bit. They would want good targetting data quality which homogeneity helps but a heterogeneous set of intrests is worth more to advertise to as more potential demand for the same share. Teenagers and young were long favored for television advertisements not because of having more of their income disposable or long term loyalty (although nice bonuses) but because they were less set in their ways. And influencing is always what they sold.
jfengel 7y ago
I think this kind of thing may be hard to study, at least for prominent issues, because the effects have been magnified by the creation of media to exploit it. Not only do people reinforce things for each other, but they have authoritative-seeming sources to point to. Those sources are in fact carefully crafted for that purpose, partly for political gain, partly for the sheer commercial power of being perceived as the only acceptable information source. Once you've bought into the notion that everybody else is lying to you, no amount of getting outside your social circle is going to help. You can simply reject their reality and substitute your own. The cause-and-effect of these superpowered propaganda machines and social networks are hard to untangle; they arose together and influenced each other.
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  We're never going to figure out how to rebuild trust until we can figure out how to redesign our systems of government and commerce to not reward lying and manipulation, or at least to mitigate its appeal. The problem has never been that we don't know how to overcome human biases, the problem is that we don't even really want to because exploiting them for political power and financial gain is so lucrative.
  - jfengel 7y ago
    My opinion, which is obviously reflecting my own bias, is that there is a very large segment of the US who really ought to know better, and that there isn't much we can do until they choose to do so. They've crossed the line from the ordinary kind of biases, selfishness, and differences of opinion to active malice. That has been exploited by those seeking power and money, but that exploitation is so transparent that they can't be unaware. They accede to it because their top priority has become the fight itself and defeating their opponents -- even though those opponents are fellow citizens. That allows them to buy into even the most obvious deceptions, because it affirms for them the deeper truth. I've expressed this in nonpartisan terms, but I'm willing to bet that everybody knows who I'm talking about, and they will object. I'm not going to engage -- the whole point here is that I don't believe engaging will achieve anything. And it also means that their attempts to convince me will similarly be ignored -- either because I'm right, or precisely because I'm wrong. The irony bugs the hell out of me.
raxxorrax 7y ago
> people often strenuously resist such diversification efforts Yes, that would make sense. Didn't look at the study, but if the depicted diagrams are representative of the phenomenon, people might just have used linear extrapolation to estimate population sizes. Extrapolation is just an improved form of lying, ask any mathematician. But could it really be called bias? That aside, I also believe that I have a right to bias. This is equivalent to having a right to an opinion in almost all cases. If not, please specify the difference.
- airstrike 7y ago
  > This is equivalent to having a right to an opinion in almost all cases. If not, please specify the difference. I would argue "bias" is a subconscious variation of having an opinion. It's fine to have opinions, so long as you think critically about them and chose a rational opinion based on well-defined principles and / or assumptions. It's not equally fine to discredit disconforming evidence simply due to cognitive dissonance.
- naravara 7y ago
  >That aside, I also believe that I have a right to bias. This is equivalent to having a right to an opinion in almost all cases. If not, please specify the difference. This is like arguing that you have a "right" to have your car veer in one direction or another. Sure you do, but the point is that this tendency makes it harder to drive straight (or hold objectively correct or valid points of view) so it doesn't make sense that you would want to. And insofar as these biases affect other peoples' lives (e.g. racial prejudice), part of your responsibility as a citizen means making valid decisions in those areas.
- mirimir 7y ago
  One of my favorite deposition answers is "I'm not prepared to offer an opinion on that question."
mjohn 7y ago
I'd highly recommend How Behaviour Spreads by David Centola for anyone interested in this topic. His lecture at the Santa Fe Institute is also worth watching as a summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0fDcUJMzkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0fDcUJMzkI
airstrike 7y ago
On a related note, I'd argue the end of the Fairness Doctrine policy in 2011 allowed broadcasters to increasingly present a singular point-of-view to the detriment of diversity, which naturally has since made networks significantly more partisan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
- will4274 7y ago
  The fairness doctrine went away in 1987. It was created during an era where virtually all Americans had only the big three television stations as news sources. Given the relative diversity of sources available today, serious questions exist as to whether it's reimplementation would even be constitutional.
  - naravara 7y ago
    It wouldn't need to apply to ALL media, just whatever uses communal resources, like radio spectrum. Even if there is BS out there, having sources that are regarded as "sources of record" can help with establishing an authoritative account of where things are.
  - airstrike 7y ago
    > The fairness doctrine went away in 1987. Thanks, I misread the date upon quickly glancing the article on Wikipedia (and not American / quite old enough to remember it happening in 1987...) > Given the relative diversity of sources available today My first issue with this claim is that it's a straw man argument. I'm arguing in favor of more moderation, not less plurality. You're presenting false dichotomy by suggesting that showing both sides of an issue gets in the way of a diversity of sources. Now for more subtle and perhaps subjective criticism: what good is a plurality of sources if all of those are simply pushing their biased agenda hard down people's throats? From society's standpoint, there seems to be consensus that the state of news media today is worse than it was a few decades ago as far as partisanship, sensationalism, clickbaiting and alarmism go.
    - will4274 7y ago
airstrike 7y ago
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_%28media%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_%28media%29 Sadly the article on Wikipedia singles out some of the most egregious cases (e.g. /r/incels) as "alleged examples", which in turn implies other communities (e.g. HN) aren't equally valid examples, which I don't personally view an intellectually honest assessment.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  Any community is going to be an echo chamber around something. HN is generally a "tech is good" camp, given that we're all in tech. We might recognize boundaries and nuance in there, but most HNers generally believe tech solves problems (myself included). The concern imo is when a network, say your Facebook friends, ends up becoming a secret echo chamber without understanding it. Instead of realizing you are engaging in a biased group you assume you have a representative sampling and that people who disagree with you are the outliers.
  - lostgame 7y ago
    Not to nitpick, but I’d argue HN is more of in the ‘tech is good - when it’s good’ camp. I definitely perceive a sense of gearing towards a more ethical and responsible growth or use of technology, and that’s part of what makes me keep coming back here every day. Totally just my own anecdotal observations, however.
    - killface 7y ago
      HN is more worship of entreprenuership with a focus on tech.
airstrike 7y ago
Another study from 2016 suggests that social networks tend to lead users to become increasingly polarized regardless of the content or promotion algorithm: https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/uzzi/htm/papers/facebook%20and%20Youtube%20polarization%202016.PDF https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/uzzi/htm/papers...
big_chungus 7y ago
What this doesn't address is why many people don't conform to this. My primary friend group is about half male, half female. Half left-ish, half right-ish, some more or less authoritarian/individualistic. Some techie, some med people, some business, some arts. We disagree on tons of stuff, political, cultural, and more, but still get along fine. None of this is intentional, either; it's not as though any of us consciously selected anything. The obvious question, then, is why this is not the case here? What is different?
- mistermann 7y ago
  > We disagree on tons of stuff, political, cultural, and more, but still get along fine. None of this is intentional, either; it's not as though any of us consciously selected anything. Does your friend group perhaps engage in a sort of a curation process, only allowing in new members who can disagree but still get along fine? > The obvious question, then, is why this is not the case here? What is different? It seems to me that this is the question humanity should be trying to answer right now. The majority of the problems the world faces right now (political polarization, inequality, climate change, you name it) share one common core problem: the inability of humans to get along as well as they "should" be able to (if each out-group would "just <do x>"). I wonder if you started intently observing the nuanced nature of conversations and "conflict" in your group, and compare that to similar conversations you observe among other people (IRL, on social media, in the news) and making a list of difference in behavior and style, perhaps some interesting patterns and ideas might rise to the top. I also wonder if some way could be found to scale this exercise up, and collaborate with people in various fields (psychologists, neurologists, linguists, historians, mediators, rationalists, spiritualists, autism-spectrumists (neuro-Atypical people in general), etc), if some really important and pragmatic ideas might result that could actually be used to make some widespread improvements in this problem.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    I guess there is some curation, yeah; we don't really invite back those who are unpleasant or can't handle being wrong. I personally don't use much social media, so that might be a difference? I'm tempted to say that people just don't do too well arguing behind a screen, me included. It's difficult to see the other person as a person. I also thinks it takes some willingness: just the other evening I conversed with someone else, not a typical acquaintance, and trying to persuade him of a point. Went through my chain of logic, got to the end, and watched him shut off when he realized where I was going. Not everyone is interested, plain and simple.
AlphaWeaver 7y ago
This intuitively makes sense to me, but I'm sure there's plenty more research to be done on the topic. As a whole though, I think this is definitely a very hard problem to solve. If you're interested in this sort of thing, and interested in seeing how we can use technology to build better and more meaningful social networks, you should check out VC3 (https://vc3.club https://vc3.club). I started a discussion group specifically for topics in this problem area, and we would love to have you join the conversation.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jariel 7y ago
Highly relevant to this is the 'perception gap' data, which shows the extent to which some groups misperceives others. https://perceptiongap.us/ https://perceptiongap.us/ [1]
DHPersonal 7y ago
I took the test mentioned in the comments and failed quite remarkably: https://perceptiongap.us/the-perception-gap-quiz/ https://perceptiongap.us/the-perception-gap-quiz/ I was certain that the world was more polarized than the tests stated. I didn't base my answers on my interactions with people in my personal life but rather on what I read from social networks, especially Twitter. I think I may be poisoning my perception of the world when I use the Internet as my lens.
- Baeocystin 7y ago
  This SMBC explains it as well as anything I've come across. https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07
- thundergolfer 7y ago
  The questions seem really tailored for common ground though. For example: “Donald Trump is a flawed person” is a a much less polarising question than, “Donald a Trump is a bad president”. Humans a flawed. I would half-expect “X is a flawed person” would get >50% yes answers for almost any X. (I got -13% guessing Republican responses)
8bitsrule 7y ago
Schopenhauer: "Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." Goethe: "What is the hardest thing of all? that which seems to you the easiest: to see with your eyes what is before your eyes. "
zyxzevn 7y ago
I have no social network.. hmmm So I am smart :-)
jaydouken 7y ago
A related an interesting resource: https://ncase.me/crowds/ https://ncase.me/crowds/

153 points by BerislavLopac 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

In other words, "our social networks" tend to have mostly like-minded people influence us, so increasing the diversity of these incoming opinions can counter bias. I'm a fan of this particular explanation: https://ncase.me/crowds/ https://ncase.me/crowds/

Nasrudith 7y ago
That doesn't necessarily follow with self-selection. One group's presense may push out another, others usually do have disproportionate influence on overall bias.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

So, given this conclusion and resolving this is to meet a diverse amount of people: How do we meet a diverse group of people?

brlewis 7y ago
I don't have personal experience with this organization, but it's one I've heard of for bringing diverse viewpoints together: https://www.livingroomconversations.org/ https://www.livingroomconversations.org/
thundergolfer 7y ago
Moving to a major city is an obvious one. They are the most socio-economically and ethnically diverse places.
klyrs 7y ago
> How do we meet a diverse group of people? I went to an inner-city high school, which was fairly well integrated. I took a mix of honors and regular classes. Much of my extended family consists of evangelical conservatives. Through this lens, I saw the reality of segregation in my state, city, and school. I listen more than I talk, and tend to answer with questions rather than opinions. As an adult my filter bubble has shrunk drastically and most people I know are quite like-minded. I didn't just predict Trump winning very early in the game; I was the only person in my filter bubble who wasn't completely blindsided by his victory. So my answer is race/class integrated public schooling with forced bussing and limits on regular/honors/AP classes (eg, nobody can take more than 60% in any given track). But of course that's highly biased by my single anecdote.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago

Do social networks have a business case to diversify the connections of people on it? If people are encouraged to adhere to a limited number of affiliations and be firm in that group identity, then doesn’t that make it easier for advertisers to target them?

yorwba 7y ago
If you're open to connecting with new people, it's easier to introduce you to someone who's really into product X and recommends it to all their friends.
everdev 7y ago
> If people are encouraged to adhere to a limited number of affiliations and be firm in that group identity, then doesn’t that make it easier for advertisers to target them? I think so. If I sell motorcycles and I only have enough budget to show ads to one cohort and have two options: A) a person who likes motorcycles but has no / very few friends who like motorcycles (presumably a diverse group) B) a person who likes motorcycles and all their friends like motorcycles (a firm group identity) I'm picking group B. If I'm successful in selling them a motorcycle, it's free advertising to many more eligible buyers. Plus, even if I'm not there's a chance they might talk about my ad if it's memorable enough and spread via word of mouth.
Nasrudith 7y ago
I would guess two work are two good things cross-purpose a bit. They would want good targetting data quality which homogeneity helps but a heterogeneous set of intrests is worth more to advertise to as more potential demand for the same share. Teenagers and young were long favored for television advertisements not because of having more of their income disposable or long term loyalty (although nice bonuses) but because they were less set in their ways. And influencing is always what they sold.

jfengel 7y ago

I think this kind of thing may be hard to study, at least for prominent issues, because the effects have been magnified by the creation of media to exploit it. Not only do people reinforce things for each other, but they have authoritative-seeming sources to point to. Those sources are in fact carefully crafted for that purpose, partly for political gain, partly for the sheer commercial power of being perceived as the only acceptable information source. Once you've bought into the notion that everybody else is lying to you, no amount of getting outside your social circle is going to help. You can simply reject their reality and substitute your own. The cause-and-effect of these superpowered propaganda machines and social networks are hard to untangle; they arose together and influenced each other.

aalleavitch 7y ago
We're never going to figure out how to rebuild trust until we can figure out how to redesign our systems of government and commerce to not reward lying and manipulation, or at least to mitigate its appeal. The problem has never been that we don't know how to overcome human biases, the problem is that we don't even really want to because exploiting them for political power and financial gain is so lucrative.
- jfengel 7y ago
  My opinion, which is obviously reflecting my own bias, is that there is a very large segment of the US who really ought to know better, and that there isn't much we can do until they choose to do so. They've crossed the line from the ordinary kind of biases, selfishness, and differences of opinion to active malice. That has been exploited by those seeking power and money, but that exploitation is so transparent that they can't be unaware. They accede to it because their top priority has become the fight itself and defeating their opponents -- even though those opponents are fellow citizens. That allows them to buy into even the most obvious deceptions, because it affirms for them the deeper truth. I've expressed this in nonpartisan terms, but I'm willing to bet that everybody knows who I'm talking about, and they will object. I'm not going to engage -- the whole point here is that I don't believe engaging will achieve anything. And it also means that their attempts to convince me will similarly be ignored -- either because I'm right, or precisely because I'm wrong. The irony bugs the hell out of me.

raxxorrax 7y ago

> people often strenuously resist such diversification efforts Yes, that would make sense. Didn't look at the study, but if the depicted diagrams are representative of the phenomenon, people might just have used linear extrapolation to estimate population sizes. Extrapolation is just an improved form of lying, ask any mathematician. But could it really be called bias? That aside, I also believe that I have a right to bias. This is equivalent to having a right to an opinion in almost all cases. If not, please specify the difference.

airstrike 7y ago
> This is equivalent to having a right to an opinion in almost all cases. If not, please specify the difference. I would argue "bias" is a subconscious variation of having an opinion. It's fine to have opinions, so long as you think critically about them and chose a rational opinion based on well-defined principles and / or assumptions. It's not equally fine to discredit disconforming evidence simply due to cognitive dissonance.
naravara 7y ago
>That aside, I also believe that I have a right to bias. This is equivalent to having a right to an opinion in almost all cases. If not, please specify the difference. This is like arguing that you have a "right" to have your car veer in one direction or another. Sure you do, but the point is that this tendency makes it harder to drive straight (or hold objectively correct or valid points of view) so it doesn't make sense that you would want to. And insofar as these biases affect other peoples' lives (e.g. racial prejudice), part of your responsibility as a citizen means making valid decisions in those areas.
mirimir 7y ago
One of my favorite deposition answers is "I'm not prepared to offer an opinion on that question."

mjohn 7y ago

I'd highly recommend How Behaviour Spreads by David Centola for anyone interested in this topic. His lecture at the Santa Fe Institute is also worth watching as a summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0fDcUJMzkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0fDcUJMzkI

airstrike 7y ago

On a related note, I'd argue the end of the Fairness Doctrine policy in 2011 allowed broadcasters to increasingly present a singular point-of-view to the detriment of diversity, which naturally has since made networks significantly more partisan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

will4274 7y ago
The fairness doctrine went away in 1987. It was created during an era where virtually all Americans had only the big three television stations as news sources. Given the relative diversity of sources available today, serious questions exist as to whether it's reimplementation would even be constitutional.
- naravara 7y ago
  It wouldn't need to apply to ALL media, just whatever uses communal resources, like radio spectrum. Even if there is BS out there, having sources that are regarded as "sources of record" can help with establishing an authoritative account of where things are.
- airstrike 7y ago
  > The fairness doctrine went away in 1987. Thanks, I misread the date upon quickly glancing the article on Wikipedia (and not American / quite old enough to remember it happening in 1987...) > Given the relative diversity of sources available today My first issue with this claim is that it's a straw man argument. I'm arguing in favor of more moderation, not less plurality. You're presenting false dichotomy by suggesting that showing both sides of an issue gets in the way of a diversity of sources. Now for more subtle and perhaps subjective criticism: what good is a plurality of sources if all of those are simply pushing their biased agenda hard down people's throats? From society's standpoint, there seems to be consensus that the state of news media today is worse than it was a few decades ago as far as partisanship, sensationalism, clickbaiting and alarmism go.
  - will4274 7y ago

airstrike 7y ago

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_%28media%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_%28media%29 Sadly the article on Wikipedia singles out some of the most egregious cases (e.g. /r/incels) as "alleged examples", which in turn implies other communities (e.g. HN) aren't equally valid examples, which I don't personally view an intellectually honest assessment.

vorpalhex 7y ago
Any community is going to be an echo chamber around something. HN is generally a "tech is good" camp, given that we're all in tech. We might recognize boundaries and nuance in there, but most HNers generally believe tech solves problems (myself included). The concern imo is when a network, say your Facebook friends, ends up becoming a secret echo chamber without understanding it. Instead of realizing you are engaging in a biased group you assume you have a representative sampling and that people who disagree with you are the outliers.
- lostgame 7y ago
  Not to nitpick, but I’d argue HN is more of in the ‘tech is good - when it’s good’ camp. I definitely perceive a sense of gearing towards a more ethical and responsible growth or use of technology, and that’s part of what makes me keep coming back here every day. Totally just my own anecdotal observations, however.
  - killface 7y ago
    HN is more worship of entreprenuership with a focus on tech.

airstrike 7y ago

Another study from 2016 suggests that social networks tend to lead users to become increasingly polarized regardless of the content or promotion algorithm: https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/uzzi/htm/papers/facebook%20and%20Youtube%20polarization%202016.PDF https://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/uzzi/htm/papers...

big_chungus 7y ago

What this doesn't address is why many people don't conform to this. My primary friend group is about half male, half female. Half left-ish, half right-ish, some more or less authoritarian/individualistic. Some techie, some med people, some business, some arts. We disagree on tons of stuff, political, cultural, and more, but still get along fine. None of this is intentional, either; it's not as though any of us consciously selected anything. The obvious question, then, is why this is not the case here? What is different?

mistermann 7y ago
> We disagree on tons of stuff, political, cultural, and more, but still get along fine. None of this is intentional, either; it's not as though any of us consciously selected anything. Does your friend group perhaps engage in a sort of a curation process, only allowing in new members who can disagree but still get along fine? > The obvious question, then, is why this is not the case here? What is different? It seems to me that this is the question humanity should be trying to answer right now. The majority of the problems the world faces right now (political polarization, inequality, climate change, you name it) share one common core problem: the inability of humans to get along as well as they "should" be able to (if each out-group would "just <do x>"). I wonder if you started intently observing the nuanced nature of conversations and "conflict" in your group, and compare that to similar conversations you observe among other people (IRL, on social media, in the news) and making a list of difference in behavior and style, perhaps some interesting patterns and ideas might rise to the top. I also wonder if some way could be found to scale this exercise up, and collaborate with people in various fields (psychologists, neurologists, linguists, historians, mediators, rationalists, spiritualists, autism-spectrumists (neuro-Atypical people in general), etc), if some really important and pragmatic ideas might result that could actually be used to make some widespread improvements in this problem.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  I guess there is some curation, yeah; we don't really invite back those who are unpleasant or can't handle being wrong. I personally don't use much social media, so that might be a difference? I'm tempted to say that people just don't do too well arguing behind a screen, me included. It's difficult to see the other person as a person. I also thinks it takes some willingness: just the other evening I conversed with someone else, not a typical acquaintance, and trying to persuade him of a point. Went through my chain of logic, got to the end, and watched him shut off when he realized where I was going. Not everyone is interested, plain and simple.

AlphaWeaver 7y ago

This intuitively makes sense to me, but I'm sure there's plenty more research to be done on the topic. As a whole though, I think this is definitely a very hard problem to solve. If you're interested in this sort of thing, and interested in seeing how we can use technology to build better and more meaningful social networks, you should check out VC3 (https://vc3.club https://vc3.club). I started a discussion group specifically for topics in this problem area, and we would love to have you join the conversation.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jariel 7y ago

Highly relevant to this is the 'perception gap' data, which shows the extent to which some groups misperceives others. https://perceptiongap.us/ https://perceptiongap.us/ [1]

DHPersonal 7y ago

I took the test mentioned in the comments and failed quite remarkably: https://perceptiongap.us/the-perception-gap-quiz/ https://perceptiongap.us/the-perception-gap-quiz/ I was certain that the world was more polarized than the tests stated. I didn't base my answers on my interactions with people in my personal life but rather on what I read from social networks, especially Twitter. I think I may be poisoning my perception of the world when I use the Internet as my lens.

Baeocystin 7y ago
This SMBC explains it as well as anything I've come across. https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07
thundergolfer 7y ago
The questions seem really tailored for common ground though. For example: “Donald Trump is a flawed person” is a a much less polarising question than, “Donald a Trump is a bad president”. Humans a flawed. I would half-expect “X is a flawed person” would get >50% yes answers for almost any X. (I got -13% guessing Republican responses)

8bitsrule 7y ago

Schopenhauer: "Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." Goethe: "What is the hardest thing of all? that which seems to you the easiest: to see with your eyes what is before your eyes. "

zyxzevn 7y ago

I have no social network.. hmmm So I am smart :-)

jaydouken 7y ago

A related an interesting resource: https://ncase.me/crowds/ https://ncase.me/crowds/