6 ms·

It destroyed the average Joe's faith in the average Joe. Now, people are more separated than ever, in their echo chambers, hating each other and firmly believi

It destroyed the average Joe's faith in the average Joe. Now, people are more separated than ever, in their echo chambers, hating each other and firmly believing they are better and righter than the other.

dimitrios1 6y ago
I can't get people I am close with to even consider engaging in conversations about firmly held beliefs they have if I even remotely present myself as possibly holding a different opinion.
- sillysaurusx 6y ago
  Understand that this is the norm. And understand that when you present differing opinions without being asked, you’re acting selfishly — you’re not doing it because you care about them, you’re doing it for yourself. Ultimately it depends what you want out of your personal relationships. I’ve found people who are willing to talk. But I haven’t found people who genuinely change their mind about deeply held beliefs without a lot of patient — emphasis on patient — conversations over a long period of time. And sometimes I’m the one who changes their mind. So I don’t think you’re going to be satisfied if you feel you must be able to change your group’s minds about social issues. A group is its own form of entity. If you don’t identify with your group, find another one. They exist. But if you don’t identify with your associates, that’s a hard problem which won’t go away. It helps to accept that you care about them more than what they believe, and leave it at that.
  - dimitrios1 6y ago
    That's not what I am saying at all. I mean for the sake of conversation and discussion, asking to even explain a belief, for understanding. Sometimes even the question is seemed as a threat. I didn't say I want to change anyone's mind. Wanting to have a discussion about important topics with loved ones isn't an instant trip down selfishness lane. I see what you are saying, but you jumped the gun a little bit.
    - ineedasername 6y ago
      It's not really anything new: Most people generally don't want to entertain ideas highly contrary to their own. Enshrined in the the old adage that you should never discuss religion or politics in some circumstances. Thanksgiving dinners have been getting ruined for decades by it. The rate of that happening has very likely increased though.
    - sillysaurusx 6y ago
      Wanting to have a discussion about important topics with loved ones isn't an instant trip down selfishness lane. Are you sure? I don’t know. It helped me to view it as “yes, this is selfish. They’re more important to me than the topic.” The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it? Another way to phrase it: why care so much what they think? If they don’t explain themselves, then they probably don’t care whether you agree. To reframe the question a bit, what do you feel you would get out of it if they explained their belief structure to you? (Explain your belief about this, ha.)
      - zelphirkalt 6y ago
        What is your definition of selfishness then? Looking at the things you wrote: > They’re more important to me than the topic. Why does it mean one is selfish, when _a topic_ (not oneself) is more important to oneself than that other person? > The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it? Perhaps. But the interpretation is still not immediately "selfishness" for me. You are not there to please them and make them feel good. But how does that immediately become "selfish"? > To reframe the question a bit, what do you feel you would get out of it if they explained their belief structure to you? (Explain your belief about this, ha.) Yes, that is a good introspective question, that one maybe should ask oneself. However, if anything that could somehow be interpreted as "wanting something for oneself" is considered selfish, then we can shut down all our media right now and stop talking to everyone else. You can always claim "You did this or that conversation only to feel good about yourself! So Selfish!" So I am asking: What is your definition of selfishness?
  - op03 6y ago
    Good job. And correct.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    You are assuming a great deal.
- aeternum 6y ago
  I'd suggest approaching the conversation from the POV that you yourself have not fully made up your mind about an issue and would like input. By genuinely adopting this viewpoint, not only will you likely have a more productive discussion, but you may reconsider some of your own priors.
- shortandsweet 6y ago
  Same. I want to start a club of people like us. At a library with a coffee shop and bar included. Bunch of us philosophical peeps chillin and talking shit but nobody gets mad. I would love such a paradise.
  - narrator 6y ago
    It's called 4chan.
    - shortandsweet 6y ago
      I don't get how 4chan related to the conversation. My main desire is to find people that are truth seekers. Question what we know and investigate. I don't find that curiousity in most people. How that is related to 4chan is lost on me.
      - malwrar 6y ago
        I think the poster means the anonymous, no upvote aspect. Seriously, I’ve been on quite a few different styles of message board and discussion quality is noticeably better when you can’t get any other queues about how “right” an post is except for its content. Depending on the subject, some of the not-pol/b boards can actually be quite nice.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      I think he is thinking smaller. Maybe 10 people at most.
  - FeepingCreature 6y ago
    Consider looking if there's a LessWrong meetup nearby? The wiki has a list. edit: Probably better after Covid.
nanonan 6y ago
I'm reminded of the stereotypical personality alignment matrix common to role playing games, with lawful and chatic matched to good and evil. Each of to need to strive to sit in the middle, true neutral. In this position one can recognize echo chambers are all around us and one must hop from to the another to gain understanding and sympathy. This would be easy if we mandated the teaching of cognitive and logical fallacies. However, I fear that the powers that be (wealthy, political leaders, and attention grabbing algorithms) intentionally use these against us. Sophistry has long been a weapon of politicians against the plebs and each other. I am at loss on how all of us can transition to a more enlightened state, a state where we don't build walls between us, but recognise the selfishishness and primal fears that lead us against each other. We all suffer from cognitive limitations and fallacies and none of us really know what is the 'correct' opinion on anything. I think if we can agree we all share the same limited stupidity that's the right step go forward.
- wins32767 6y ago
  > Each of to need to strive to sit in the middle, true neutral. Says the person with a true neutral alignment.
- Bakary 6y ago
  We have to make choices, often complicated ones, so just the concept of recognizing our limitations doesn't really help. Or rather it does not change the basic fact that we have to live artfully and figure things out with very little information to guide us even in the best of cases. True neutral is not far from evil in a highly contrasted world where work has to be done.
forgingahead 6y ago
I don't agree that this is the fault of tech at all. Facebook et al are still largely echo chambers, where we see what we have cultivated ourselves to see. Sure, recommendation algorithms show us external things once in a while, but by and large you can cultivate what you see on social media. The real culprit I believe, has been the incredible hysteria of the legacy media as it joined the social media spaces, and started their race to the bottom for clickbait and outrage porn. Covering inane tweets, and blowing them up to pretend that crackpot points-of-view have more weight and are more common than they truly are. Gotcha gonzo-journalism, that prides "getting them" (whichever group that may be) over informing, and in the process dehumanising large swathes of people for clicks. How you "can't avoid politics, because everything is political". Ravelry, which is a crocheting website, went mad with us-vs-them discussions. Why? The fault is mainly with legacy media, because they had the credibility and prestige of their history, plus the consistency of their output (daily, weekly, whatever), which they used to spoonfeed poison to large parts of society. How others are "unlike us", and that "they're evil", and oh by the way, "vote for our candidate" who is the some storybook hero we need. The "two-minutes-of-hate" has come largely from legacy media, and they are responsible for the schisms present right now.
- cmdshiftf4 6y ago
  >I don't agree that this is the fault of tech at all. >The real culprit I believe, has been the incredible hysteria of the legacy media as it joined the social media spaces, and started their race to the bottom for clickbait and outrage porn. Covering inane tweets, and blowing them up to pretend that crackpot points-of-view have more weight and are more common than they truly are. Gotcha gonzo-journalism, that prides "getting them" (whichever group that may be) over informing, and in the process dehumanising large swathes of people for clicks. Everything you've outlined above is entirely the result of technology and the incentive structures that have been pursued in its "advancement".
  - forgingahead 6y ago
    Tech didn't force anyone or any org to act maliciously. Either one chooses to uphold their own values every day, or they sway with the wind regardless of consequence, but either way the choice was theirs. If it was so easy to convince the so-called fourth estate to drop truth-seeking and fair coverage for clickbait, then it wasn't a core value to them in the first place.
vlunkr 6y ago
As a counterpoint, I've seen lots of people become more accepting because of the way the internet connects people. If you lived in a rural place before, you likely had very little interaction with minority groups outside of how they were portrayed in media. Now it's possible to interact with all kinds of people and recognize them as people instead of stereotypes. I don't deny that there are echo chambers and major communication breakdowns, but I think on the whole it's a positive development.
- giantg2 6y ago
  How does that work, like how does the connection get made and identity discovered? Generally I feel the echo chamber effect would be more common.
  - halfmatthalfcat 6y ago
    One consumes information online, that information causes introspection and a better perspective of one's identity. Usually it's not one specific event but a bombardment of information that over time, hopefully gives someone more perspective and their place in the world. On the other hand, it closes some people off and causes the echo chamber. Cuts both ways.
    - philipps 6y ago
      Can you share some articles or studies that demonstrate the increasing openness? (I hope it’s true that it cuts both ways, but would like to see more data/research).
    - giantg2 6y ago
      I don't know. I can see it going both ways, but I think that modern technology has reduced introspection for many people. In the news today, it's all about sound bites and hyperbolic headlines. I thing the intellectual attributes of news sources has declined. I thought I saw a study or thread on HN supporting the claim, but now I can't find it.
devilduck 6y ago
I think that is not the fault of tech. It's always PEBKAC, forever and ever.
yesenadam 6y ago
Where is this you're describing? The USA, or some part of the USA? Doesn't sound anything like my bubble, my city or my country. (Not the USA) I have heard that bleak description before, just never experienced it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nickthemagicman 6y ago
I don't think nukes did that. The news media did that.

dimitrios1 6y ago

I can't get people I am close with to even consider engaging in conversations about firmly held beliefs they have if I even remotely present myself as possibly holding a different opinion.

sillysaurusx 6y ago
Understand that this is the norm. And understand that when you present differing opinions without being asked, you’re acting selfishly — you’re not doing it because you care about them, you’re doing it for yourself. Ultimately it depends what you want out of your personal relationships. I’ve found people who are willing to talk. But I haven’t found people who genuinely change their mind about deeply held beliefs without a lot of patient — emphasis on patient — conversations over a long period of time. And sometimes I’m the one who changes their mind. So I don’t think you’re going to be satisfied if you feel you must be able to change your group’s minds about social issues. A group is its own form of entity. If you don’t identify with your group, find another one. They exist. But if you don’t identify with your associates, that’s a hard problem which won’t go away. It helps to accept that you care about them more than what they believe, and leave it at that.
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  That's not what I am saying at all. I mean for the sake of conversation and discussion, asking to even explain a belief, for understanding. Sometimes even the question is seemed as a threat. I didn't say I want to change anyone's mind. Wanting to have a discussion about important topics with loved ones isn't an instant trip down selfishness lane. I see what you are saying, but you jumped the gun a little bit.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    It's not really anything new: Most people generally don't want to entertain ideas highly contrary to their own. Enshrined in the the old adage that you should never discuss religion or politics in some circumstances. Thanksgiving dinners have been getting ruined for decades by it. The rate of that happening has very likely increased though.
  - sillysaurusx 6y ago
    Wanting to have a discussion about important topics with loved ones isn't an instant trip down selfishness lane. Are you sure? I don’t know. It helped me to view it as “yes, this is selfish. They’re more important to me than the topic.” The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it? Another way to phrase it: why care so much what they think? If they don’t explain themselves, then they probably don’t care whether you agree. To reframe the question a bit, what do you feel you would get out of it if they explained their belief structure to you? (Explain your belief about this, ha.)
    - zelphirkalt 6y ago
      What is your definition of selfishness then? Looking at the things you wrote: > They’re more important to me than the topic. Why does it mean one is selfish, when _a topic_ (not oneself) is more important to oneself than that other person? > The reason they’re talking is to feel good with themselves (as we all are). But asking someone to explain a tricky subject throws that off, doesn’t it? Perhaps. But the interpretation is still not immediately "selfishness" for me. You are not there to please them and make them feel good. But how does that immediately become "selfish"? > To reframe the question a bit, what do you feel you would get out of it if they explained their belief structure to you? (Explain your belief about this, ha.) Yes, that is a good introspective question, that one maybe should ask oneself. However, if anything that could somehow be interpreted as "wanting something for oneself" is considered selfish, then we can shut down all our media right now and stop talking to everyone else. You can always claim "You did this or that conversation only to feel good about yourself! So Selfish!" So I am asking: What is your definition of selfishness?
- op03 6y ago
  Good job. And correct.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  You are assuming a great deal.
aeternum 6y ago
I'd suggest approaching the conversation from the POV that you yourself have not fully made up your mind about an issue and would like input. By genuinely adopting this viewpoint, not only will you likely have a more productive discussion, but you may reconsider some of your own priors.
shortandsweet 6y ago
Same. I want to start a club of people like us. At a library with a coffee shop and bar included. Bunch of us philosophical peeps chillin and talking shit but nobody gets mad. I would love such a paradise.
- narrator 6y ago
  It's called 4chan.
  - shortandsweet 6y ago
    I don't get how 4chan related to the conversation. My main desire is to find people that are truth seekers. Question what we know and investigate. I don't find that curiousity in most people. How that is related to 4chan is lost on me.
    - malwrar 6y ago
      I think the poster means the anonymous, no upvote aspect. Seriously, I’ve been on quite a few different styles of message board and discussion quality is noticeably better when you can’t get any other queues about how “right” an post is except for its content. Depending on the subject, some of the not-pol/b boards can actually be quite nice.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    I think he is thinking smaller. Maybe 10 people at most.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  Consider looking if there's a LessWrong meetup nearby? The wiki has a list. edit: Probably better after Covid.

nanonan 6y ago

I'm reminded of the stereotypical personality alignment matrix common to role playing games, with lawful and chatic matched to good and evil. Each of to need to strive to sit in the middle, true neutral. In this position one can recognize echo chambers are all around us and one must hop from to the another to gain understanding and sympathy. This would be easy if we mandated the teaching of cognitive and logical fallacies. However, I fear that the powers that be (wealthy, political leaders, and attention grabbing algorithms) intentionally use these against us. Sophistry has long been a weapon of politicians against the plebs and each other. I am at loss on how all of us can transition to a more enlightened state, a state where we don't build walls between us, but recognise the selfishishness and primal fears that lead us against each other. We all suffer from cognitive limitations and fallacies and none of us really know what is the 'correct' opinion on anything. I think if we can agree we all share the same limited stupidity that's the right step go forward.

wins32767 6y ago
> Each of to need to strive to sit in the middle, true neutral. Says the person with a true neutral alignment.
Bakary 6y ago
We have to make choices, often complicated ones, so just the concept of recognizing our limitations doesn't really help. Or rather it does not change the basic fact that we have to live artfully and figure things out with very little information to guide us even in the best of cases. True neutral is not far from evil in a highly contrasted world where work has to be done.

forgingahead 6y ago

I don't agree that this is the fault of tech at all. Facebook et al are still largely echo chambers, where we see what we have cultivated ourselves to see. Sure, recommendation algorithms show us external things once in a while, but by and large you can cultivate what you see on social media. The real culprit I believe, has been the incredible hysteria of the legacy media as it joined the social media spaces, and started their race to the bottom for clickbait and outrage porn. Covering inane tweets, and blowing them up to pretend that crackpot points-of-view have more weight and are more common than they truly are. Gotcha gonzo-journalism, that prides "getting them" (whichever group that may be) over informing, and in the process dehumanising large swathes of people for clicks. How you "can't avoid politics, because everything is political". Ravelry, which is a crocheting website, went mad with us-vs-them discussions. Why? The fault is mainly with legacy media, because they had the credibility and prestige of their history, plus the consistency of their output (daily, weekly, whatever), which they used to spoonfeed poison to large parts of society. How others are "unlike us", and that "they're evil", and oh by the way, "vote for our candidate" who is the some storybook hero we need. The "two-minutes-of-hate" has come largely from legacy media, and they are responsible for the schisms present right now.

cmdshiftf4 6y ago
>I don't agree that this is the fault of tech at all. >The real culprit I believe, has been the incredible hysteria of the legacy media as it joined the social media spaces, and started their race to the bottom for clickbait and outrage porn. Covering inane tweets, and blowing them up to pretend that crackpot points-of-view have more weight and are more common than they truly are. Gotcha gonzo-journalism, that prides "getting them" (whichever group that may be) over informing, and in the process dehumanising large swathes of people for clicks. Everything you've outlined above is entirely the result of technology and the incentive structures that have been pursued in its "advancement".
- forgingahead 6y ago
  Tech didn't force anyone or any org to act maliciously. Either one chooses to uphold their own values every day, or they sway with the wind regardless of consequence, but either way the choice was theirs. If it was so easy to convince the so-called fourth estate to drop truth-seeking and fair coverage for clickbait, then it wasn't a core value to them in the first place.

vlunkr 6y ago

As a counterpoint, I've seen lots of people become more accepting because of the way the internet connects people. If you lived in a rural place before, you likely had very little interaction with minority groups outside of how they were portrayed in media. Now it's possible to interact with all kinds of people and recognize them as people instead of stereotypes. I don't deny that there are echo chambers and major communication breakdowns, but I think on the whole it's a positive development.

giantg2 6y ago
How does that work, like how does the connection get made and identity discovered? Generally I feel the echo chamber effect would be more common.
- halfmatthalfcat 6y ago
  One consumes information online, that information causes introspection and a better perspective of one's identity. Usually it's not one specific event but a bombardment of information that over time, hopefully gives someone more perspective and their place in the world. On the other hand, it closes some people off and causes the echo chamber. Cuts both ways.
  - philipps 6y ago
    Can you share some articles or studies that demonstrate the increasing openness? (I hope it’s true that it cuts both ways, but would like to see more data/research).
  - giantg2 6y ago
    I don't know. I can see it going both ways, but I think that modern technology has reduced introspection for many people. In the news today, it's all about sound bites and hyperbolic headlines. I thing the intellectual attributes of news sources has declined. I thought I saw a study or thread on HN supporting the claim, but now I can't find it.

devilduck 6y ago

I think that is not the fault of tech. It's always PEBKAC, forever and ever.

yesenadam 6y ago

Where is this you're describing? The USA, or some part of the USA? Doesn't sound anything like my bubble, my city or my country. (Not the USA) I have heard that bleak description before, just never experienced it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

nickthemagicman 6y ago

I don't think nukes did that. The news media did that.