5 ms·

I wonder if researchers are simply failing to frame the problem. It might not be that the perception of norms are distorted. It's just that communities are ent

I wonder if researchers are simply failing to frame the problem. It might not be that the perception of norms are distorted. It's just that communities are entirely different and insulated, and thus as communities go they organically develop their own norms. This failure in perception also communicates a bias that a specific norm should be the reigning one and anything that differs from it is "distorted". This reads like last century's inherent racism in sociology, anthropology, and even linguistics, where anything that contrasted with the old country's baseline was labelled as distortions and errors.

Dalewyn 2y ago
[flagged]
- motorest 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - redeux 2y ago
    What you said does encapsulate conservative vs progressive ideology pretty well. One seeks to cling to their ancestors norms and one seeks to write their own. I don’t think it’s trolling to point that out, but maybe I’m missing some subtext.
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      "I don’t think it’s trolling to point that out, but maybe I’m missing some subtext." It is a troll because it was only pointed at progressives. You made the point that technically correct, this applies to conservative and progressives can both have similar issues with echo chambers. But the parent was clearly only focusing on progressives that are in error, as if the conservative ideology is correct. When really, there are a several studies that show that conservatives are more likely to fall for conspiracy theories, and not able to use critical thinking.
      - heresie-dabord 2y ago
        You are right, everyone who wants to be taken seriously -- "conservatives" , "progressives" , and whatever else we choose for terminology -- needs to apply critical thinking to make good social and fiscal policy. (Foreign policy is even harder.) But the group-level defamation that has infected US discourse in particular is a sign of someone who is failing to think, has fallen to propaganda, or is being a troll. In many cases, maybe all the above. Some participants/actors/entities are not at the discussion table with the objective of a mutually-beneficial outcome.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - saagarjha 2y ago
      Nah it’s quite a bit easier than that: you’re violating the site guidelines.
      - rrr_oh_man 2y ago
        In what way does he do that?
        saagarjha 2y ago
        > Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      Both sides have Narratives. If I speak out against the right, then I'm a tranz communist child molester that needs some Jesus. And, there is data, the right 'cancels' more people than the left. The right has it's own virtue signaling and cancel culture.
      - b800h 2y ago
        I don't think that's true though. The right doesn't vilify in quite the same way as the left has historically done. They're certainly starting to learn to.
        FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        Think devil is in the details. There is: Left Cancelling Left Right Cancelling Right Left on Right Right on Left Left Cancelling Right. The feeling is that people are being held accountable, like the rich that get away with sexual assault. The rich are often on the Right. The Right thinks it is a freedom of speech issue. They are being silenced. But the retort would be, why are they trying to get away with sexual assault, why shouldn't that be called out. But Left on Left, and Right on Right, appears more about virtue signaling. https://sapirjournal.org/cancellation/2022/10/when-right-cancels-right/ https://sapirjournal.org/cancellation/2022/10/when-right-can... https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00323217211037023 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00323217211037023
ANewFormation 2y ago
The topic is about how people within these subsets of society begin to believe the norms of their subset are shared by society at large, or in other words - by people outside their subset.
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  A bubble. Interestingly enough, we sit and talk in an incubator (thats what YT is). How can we really assess the situation from our own bubble? If we really want to be objective here. We're just as bat shit as society at large. Social media pretty much abused every generation. Truly a class action lawsuit is in order, if we only had the courage.
  - throwaway984393 2y ago
    [dead]
  - CaptainFever 2y ago
    > Social media pretty much abused every generation. That's a pretty extreme viewpoint, no?
    - ANewFormation 2y ago
      There was a time when cocaine was not only legal but ubiquitous and being used in everything medical tonics, CocaCola, wines, employers were providing it to laborers, and so on endlessly. But it's not like cocaine became worse over time - it still had all the harmful and addictive characteristics that cocaine is known for. And so it was eventually banned because it was indeed 'abusing each generation.' The point I make is that something can gave beneficial and desirable characteristics, yet if the negatives are sufficiently large, then those positives are mostly irrelevant.
- motorest 2y ago
  > The topic is about how people within these subsets of society begin to believe the norms of their subset are shared by society at large, or in other words - by people outside their subset. Again, I think that's just a failure to frame the problem. Norms originate and develop organically within communities. If you have online communities that develop their own norms, and that community does not have a perfect 1-to-1 correspondence with other communities, such as your work or your local bar scene, then you're bound to stumble upon people who don't share them even though they are apart of other communities shared by you. The same applies if you replace "online community" with "work", "bar scene", "school board", etc. The only aspect that sounds remotely relevant is the online nature of said communities, but that's something that exist and is already known for decades.
FollowingTheDao 2y ago
There is a difference between false norms and the spectrum of norms in a society. What they are saying is that you do not see the full spectrum of norms on social media, so what you are seeing are "false norms" and they are the most extreme norms. Being against slavery was just one norm out of many, but on social media all you might have seen was pro-slavery norms. Social media robs you of your democracy and your voice because the algorithms are weigthed for the most attention getting extreme voices. And they do this telling you it is the best invention ever as they make gobs of money so they can bribe politicians to make your life completely worse in every other way possible because shareholders.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >Social media robs you of your democracy and your voice That has been the case with any form of information consumption, including journalism (newspapers). As Mark Twain (probably) once said: "If you don't read the newspaper you're uninformed, if you read the newspaper you're misinformed." The answer has always been to develop and maintain mental capacity for critical thinking and form your own opinions instead of having someone program you.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    Correct, newspapers, television, they all had similar problems. I think the point is social media is larger, more encapsulating, more pervasive, more targeted than a newspaper or television ever could be.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - Kbelicius 2y ago
        > when journalists suppressed information about George Floyd’s criminal background and drug use because, in their view, it wasn’t relevant to the issue. Because it isn't relevant? Seems that you think that it is relevant, how?
DiscourseFan 2y ago
I saw some headline the other day about an Elon Musk tweet where he claims that humans are evolving to be born via c-section only as our heads are getting to big to be passed naturally through a womb. Queue numerous reddit comments saying Musk is so stupid, insane, racist, etc. all with many upvotes. I search and find Reddit posts from about 10 years ago making the same claim about c-section births, and there are many comments saying yes that makes a lot of sense, all with many upvotes relative to the size of the community back then. I just find the whole thing kind of ridiculous. I know people, probably at one point intelligent people, who are addicted to twitter, reddit, facebook etc. and always have the unnuanced opinion of whatever their online in-group believes. Thus its remarkable to me that Trump won seemingly by both calling one group's dogma into question, while simultaneously endorsing another's.
- svachalek 2y ago
  Your last sentence is confusing, as you seem to understand the nature of online dogma wars and are then surprised by their natural conclusion.
- add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
  It's normal and logical for the same information to be met with different levels of skepticism based on the reputation of the source.
- motorest 2y ago
  > I search and find Reddit posts from about 10 years ago making the same claim about c-section births, and there are many comments saying yes that makes a lot of sense (...) If you search hard enough, you will find many comments describing Yeti's anatomy in detail. What exactly do you think your point is? That what represents a moron now and a decade ago still holds true?
heresie-dabord 2y ago
> a bias that a specific norm should be the reigning one and anything that differs from it is "distorted" Modern social-media business has only a short history of operating within stable societies. It is not in of itself a society of any sort. It is a business. Its product has known problems with violent extremism. There certainly are "norms" within extremist groups. You probably don't want them anywhere near your family and friends. Violence is bad, and so are stalking, defamation, death threats, and disinformation/propaganda. In Real Society, there are consequences for these things.
- motorest 2y ago
  > Modern social-media business has only a short history of operating within stable societies. It is not in of itself a society of any sort. That's simply false. Check the textbook definition of "society" and check how online communities operate to see how all your arguments are based on an assumption that's fundamentally wrong.

Dalewyn 2y ago

[flagged]

motorest 2y ago
[flagged]
- redeux 2y ago
  What you said does encapsulate conservative vs progressive ideology pretty well. One seeks to cling to their ancestors norms and one seeks to write their own. I don’t think it’s trolling to point that out, but maybe I’m missing some subtext.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    "I don’t think it’s trolling to point that out, but maybe I’m missing some subtext." It is a troll because it was only pointed at progressives. You made the point that technically correct, this applies to conservative and progressives can both have similar issues with echo chambers. But the parent was clearly only focusing on progressives that are in error, as if the conservative ideology is correct. When really, there are a several studies that show that conservatives are more likely to fall for conspiracy theories, and not able to use critical thinking.
    - heresie-dabord 2y ago
      You are right, everyone who wants to be taken seriously -- "conservatives" , "progressives" , and whatever else we choose for terminology -- needs to apply critical thinking to make good social and fiscal policy. (Foreign policy is even harder.) But the group-level defamation that has infected US discourse in particular is a sign of someone who is failing to think, has fallen to propaganda, or is being a troll. In many cases, maybe all the above. Some participants/actors/entities are not at the discussion table with the objective of a mutually-beneficial outcome.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    Nah it’s quite a bit easier than that: you’re violating the site guidelines.
    - rrr_oh_man 2y ago
      In what way does he do that?
      - saagarjha 2y ago
        > Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    Both sides have Narratives. If I speak out against the right, then I'm a tranz communist child molester that needs some Jesus. And, there is data, the right 'cancels' more people than the left. The right has it's own virtue signaling and cancel culture.
    - b800h 2y ago
      I don't think that's true though. The right doesn't vilify in quite the same way as the left has historically done. They're certainly starting to learn to.
      - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        Think devil is in the details. There is: Left Cancelling Left Right Cancelling Right Left on Right Right on Left Left Cancelling Right. The feeling is that people are being held accountable, like the rich that get away with sexual assault. The rich are often on the Right. The Right thinks it is a freedom of speech issue. They are being silenced. But the retort would be, why are they trying to get away with sexual assault, why shouldn't that be called out. But Left on Left, and Right on Right, appears more about virtue signaling. https://sapirjournal.org/cancellation/2022/10/when-right-cancels-right/ https://sapirjournal.org/cancellation/2022/10/when-right-can... https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00323217211037023 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00323217211037023

ANewFormation 2y ago

The topic is about how people within these subsets of society begin to believe the norms of their subset are shared by society at large, or in other words - by people outside their subset.

bloomingkales 2y ago
A bubble. Interestingly enough, we sit and talk in an incubator (thats what YT is). How can we really assess the situation from our own bubble? If we really want to be objective here. We're just as bat shit as society at large. Social media pretty much abused every generation. Truly a class action lawsuit is in order, if we only had the courage.
- throwaway984393 2y ago
  [dead]
- CaptainFever 2y ago
  > Social media pretty much abused every generation. That's a pretty extreme viewpoint, no?
  - ANewFormation 2y ago
    There was a time when cocaine was not only legal but ubiquitous and being used in everything medical tonics, CocaCola, wines, employers were providing it to laborers, and so on endlessly. But it's not like cocaine became worse over time - it still had all the harmful and addictive characteristics that cocaine is known for. And so it was eventually banned because it was indeed 'abusing each generation.' The point I make is that something can gave beneficial and desirable characteristics, yet if the negatives are sufficiently large, then those positives are mostly irrelevant.
motorest 2y ago
> The topic is about how people within these subsets of society begin to believe the norms of their subset are shared by society at large, or in other words - by people outside their subset. Again, I think that's just a failure to frame the problem. Norms originate and develop organically within communities. If you have online communities that develop their own norms, and that community does not have a perfect 1-to-1 correspondence with other communities, such as your work or your local bar scene, then you're bound to stumble upon people who don't share them even though they are apart of other communities shared by you. The same applies if you replace "online community" with "work", "bar scene", "school board", etc. The only aspect that sounds remotely relevant is the online nature of said communities, but that's something that exist and is already known for decades.

FollowingTheDao 2y ago

There is a difference between false norms and the spectrum of norms in a society. What they are saying is that you do not see the full spectrum of norms on social media, so what you are seeing are "false norms" and they are the most extreme norms. Being against slavery was just one norm out of many, but on social media all you might have seen was pro-slavery norms. Social media robs you of your democracy and your voice because the algorithms are weigthed for the most attention getting extreme voices. And they do this telling you it is the best invention ever as they make gobs of money so they can bribe politicians to make your life completely worse in every other way possible because shareholders.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>Social media robs you of your democracy and your voice That has been the case with any form of information consumption, including journalism (newspapers). As Mark Twain (probably) once said: "If you don't read the newspaper you're uninformed, if you read the newspaper you're misinformed." The answer has always been to develop and maintain mental capacity for critical thinking and form your own opinions instead of having someone program you.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  Correct, newspapers, television, they all had similar problems. I think the point is social media is larger, more encapsulating, more pervasive, more targeted than a newspaper or television ever could be.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Kbelicius 2y ago
      > when journalists suppressed information about George Floyd’s criminal background and drug use because, in their view, it wasn’t relevant to the issue. Because it isn't relevant? Seems that you think that it is relevant, how?

DiscourseFan 2y ago

I saw some headline the other day about an Elon Musk tweet where he claims that humans are evolving to be born via c-section only as our heads are getting to big to be passed naturally through a womb. Queue numerous reddit comments saying Musk is so stupid, insane, racist, etc. all with many upvotes. I search and find Reddit posts from about 10 years ago making the same claim about c-section births, and there are many comments saying yes that makes a lot of sense, all with many upvotes relative to the size of the community back then. I just find the whole thing kind of ridiculous. I know people, probably at one point intelligent people, who are addicted to twitter, reddit, facebook etc. and always have the unnuanced opinion of whatever their online in-group believes. Thus its remarkable to me that Trump won seemingly by both calling one group's dogma into question, while simultaneously endorsing another's.

svachalek 2y ago
Your last sentence is confusing, as you seem to understand the nature of online dogma wars and are then surprised by their natural conclusion.
add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
It's normal and logical for the same information to be met with different levels of skepticism based on the reputation of the source.
motorest 2y ago
> I search and find Reddit posts from about 10 years ago making the same claim about c-section births, and there are many comments saying yes that makes a lot of sense (...) If you search hard enough, you will find many comments describing Yeti's anatomy in detail. What exactly do you think your point is? That what represents a moron now and a decade ago still holds true?

heresie-dabord 2y ago

> a bias that a specific norm should be the reigning one and anything that differs from it is "distorted" Modern social-media business has only a short history of operating within stable societies. It is not in of itself a society of any sort. It is a business. Its product has known problems with violent extremism. There certainly are "norms" within extremist groups. You probably don't want them anywhere near your family and friends. Violence is bad, and so are stalking, defamation, death threats, and disinformation/propaganda. In Real Society, there are consequences for these things.

motorest 2y ago
> Modern social-media business has only a short history of operating within stable societies. It is not in of itself a society of any sort. That's simply false. Check the textbook definition of "society" and check how online communities operate to see how all your arguments are based on an assumption that's fundamentally wrong.