4 ms·
The way I see it, the problem with social media is that you surround yourself with like-minded people, which diminishes your tolerance to different views. Peopl
by elorant 6y ago
The way I see it, the problem with social media is that you surround yourself with like-minded people, which diminishes your tolerance to different views. People become self righteous and can't take criticism lightly. Compare this to how things were 15 years ago, or how they are in here, where everyone and their dog can challenge your opinion. You become more open minded long term, and can handle criticism in a more mature way.
- giantg2 6y agoExcept for the people who simply downvote and never explain their position. Plenty of them on here.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y agoI'd say that has more to do with the HN platform and its rules. Imho this is one thing that Slashdot does better: it let's you indicate the reason for your vote.
- giantg2 6y ago"I'd say that has more to do with the HN platform and its rules" Isn't that what we are discussing - platforms, their rules, and how that influences discussions? I'm just saying that there are plenty of people, in my experience on here, that would rather downvote an opposing opinion rather than start a discussion about it or answer a question about their own position. I routinely even get downvoted when asking why the previous comment was downvoted. To me, these behaviors are akin to mob-driven censorship of minority opinions - downvote it so it moves down and greys out.
- DoofusOfDeath 6y agoSorry, it looks like I misunderstood your original comment.
- mistermann 6y agoIt's so interesting...there is this well known phenomenon where ~everyone has at least some bias the vast majority of the time, and in a forum thread where this phenomenon is the specific topic of discussion (say, a psychology paper discussing subconscious bias, and the associated psychological/neurological phenomena that enable it), any significant disagreement (including whether each one of us suffers from it) with this general notion is typically very rare. But then switch over to a different thread where the topic of discussion is not some abstract idea like this, but rather an object level idea, say just for example a news story about conservative leaning people switching to a new social media platform to escape what they consider to be censorship, and something very curious occurs. In such threads, it is rare to encounter much talk about this phenomenon of psychological bias, and if it does come up, it is ~always only about the obvious bias suffered by those who are in the ~"general outgroup" of the forum community. In those cases, it is common to read numerous anecdotal observations of how people in the outgroup(s) are cognitively flawed in that they exhibit signs of "living in a bubble", and "just(!) won't listen to reason or consider ideas that are contrary to their worldview". But then if one is to initiate a conversation with a person in one of these threads, and make a reference to the formerly non-controversial abstract idea (from the psychology thread) that ~all people suffer from some bias, at ~all times, it seems as if all knowledge of that phenomenon has somehow become cognitively inaccessible, that the individual has no knowledge whatsoever of the phenomenon. Conversely, if one is to mention (say, in a different subthread in the same overall thread) this exact same phenomenon, except switching the object of reference away from the person (who was making a biased comment about their outgroup), over to members of the outgroup, this formerly inaccessible knowledge then becomes accessible once again. Just for the sake of discussion (a mental experiment of sorts), let us imagine that there is some significant truth to this theory - let's (temporarily) assume(!) it to be True, at least to a significant degree. In this purely hypothetical scenario, might this phenomenon offer some logical explanation for the amount of extreme polarization of opinion that can be witnessed in the world, this "crisis of epistemology" we talk about where different tribes seem to live in completely different realities from each other, with each reality having significantly different sets of facts? To me, this seems not only reasonable, but quite consistent with objectively observable reality.
- webmaven 6y ago
- dane-pgp 6y agoI agree with your statement, but took a long time to decide whether the best way to endorse it was to upvote or downvote your comment. (For what it's worth, I went with upvote).
- Consultant32452 6y agoI take the contrarian viewpoint here. I think the division is good. There's no reason people in the valley should have to live by the cultural rules of the people in Jackson Mississippi or vice versa. That's exactly what happens right now under our political system. The US has at least two distinct cultures and the more they grow to despise one another the sooner we can have an amicable divorce and allow each group to live freely. There can never be mutual respect when we toggle back and forth between who is forcing their will on the other.
- ralusek 6y agoIf we're not striving for some modicum of cultural unity, then yes, we need to get over our insistence that every solution be implemented at the federal level.
- tshaddox 6y agoSounds nice, but obviously that “amicable divorce” is extremely difficult to imagine.
- Consultant32452 6y agoThe UK is in the process of a nonviolent divorce with Brexit.
- tshaddox 6y agoThe EU has an explicit process for members to leave nonviolently. The United States has, well, one example of an extreme opposite of that.
- Consultant32452 6y agoThe former USSR dissolved rather peacefully at the end of the cold war.
- 6y ago