I'd suggest the main challenge is in breaking out of echo chambers. It's healthy to engage with people you (respectfully) disagree with. Not doing so can easily lead to misinformation being spread amongst like-minded people.
I would call these ways to understand that you need to break past the echo chamber. They might open your eyes to the idea that people are different. To actually break past the echo chamber you need extensive interaction with other people.
I'm in favor of letting people pursue their preferences, but echo chambers are antithetical to civil society - much more dangerous than so-called misinformation (indeed, they are environments in which errors and lies are more likely to flourish), so counteracting then is a valuable goal, in my book.
What's the problem of helping people insulate themselves into an echo-chamber? Increased polarization, diminished empathy for people with different values, greater social-sorting, lower trust in institutions, and plenty of other problems.
Yes, I agree. "Echo-chamber" and "bubble" are features. Having a informative and effective discussion at a high level, and having opinions moved, predicates a high degree of common ground.
Effectively challenging somebody's worldview doesn't begin with "everything you consider true is false, now listen to me" as is sometimes the preferred method of radicals. Being bombarded with information and viewpoints you consider wrongheaded doesn't expand your horizon, it galvanises you.
But when a person I have a lot in common with and agree with on many issues says something that I don't instinctively agree with, I listen and at the very least make sure I understand the full argument before I decide whether I think it's wrong.
And how do you dissolve -- or mitigate the effects of -- an echo chamber? By discussing contradicting views with those around you. The media has no control over that.
Personally, I try to avoid echo chambers by avoiding areas where echo chambers are prevalent and staying quiet in areas I cannot avoid. The trolling of group stupidity isn't worth the hassle.
I think it's okay to have some amount of an echo chamber, they happen more or less naturally just because of who you select to be in your personal sphere of influence, but I think I disagree with the way you describe it.
I don't think people need to exist in an echo chamber so they can "be themselves" without social consequence, I think that's actually the biggest problem with echo chambers and why people argue that they should be avoided. Rather, what we need is a higher standard of discourse outside of those echo chambers. It is possible to respectfully disagree with someone without shouting them down/trolling/removing them from the conversation, and from the other side, without reaching a point of disruption that someone might consider that a good resolution. The failure happens at both sides of the conversation, and interacting outside of echo chambers seems to me the only way to gain experience in interacting civilly.
i would say: consume media from many sources; don't focus only on media you agree with, that are aligned with your opinion; get out of your echo chamber; discuss with others; think, reflect, be aware of possible manipulation; don't avoid the long reads; catch up on background material
The particular problem the internet has (though other mediums quite often have also) is people arguing in bad faith. Lets say I'm against X which could be any number of things (religion, race, politics, sexual orientation, etc). Actually, lets say I hate any one of the people involved in the aforementioned categories, not just against. Do you think I'm going to have a rational disagreement on this in a manner where my mind could be changed by new information? Doesn't seem likely. Is my constant stream of bad faith arguments going to ruin the experience for everyone else? Seems very likely.
This falls under the paradox of tolerance. Let the intolerant take over and you'll push out the tolerant that don't want to put up with their shit.
The hard part, no I say the impossible part, is the demarcation between figuring out who is there just to be an asshole against the group and who is really having a discussion. Every person in the group will have a different definition and tolerance level.
I think we need to critically evaluate what we call echo chambers. The continent, country, state, city, street you live in all exhibit patterns of echo chambers. In a sense, our planet itself is an echo chamber. Every human network is an echo chamber that boosts signals to varying degrees. A lot of times, this is a good thing! Like when people come together to help each other. The real problem is when the network itself is designed to boost certain signals (e.g. outrage, controversy) over others to a point where our society breaks down. Many of today's centralized networks profit greatly from misinformation, anger, and other negative signals. IMO that is the problem we need to tackle.
It’s definitely been interesting hearing some feedback. There’s a lot of passion about the topic.
The problem I’m interested in has nothing to do with winning arguments, more that so many people are quiet, not saying anything, because they aren’t interested in current discussion options, and the huge negative downsides.
I will reflect on all the feedback, especially the criticism. I don’t agree that I can divide it by political leaning though, and I certainly hope it’s not true. Definitely agree that the last thing the world needs is another echo chamber.
I don't really care too much about echo chambers themselves. It's more about the effect if you don't do your own research. With the right mindset, you can survive in one.
An easy way to check yourself is to seek out opposing views, try to build the thought models in your head, try variations on those models. Depending on the constituents' attitudes it might be a good idea to keep your new ideas to yourself if you want to remain part of the group.
The problem with echo chambers isn't so much verification (is the information accurate?) but rather validation (is the process of acceptance rational or qualified?).
Echo chambers tend to be hyper-subjective, which means new information is accepted or rejected on the basis of content-oriented rules opposed to whether decisions upon the information are valid, qualified, or balanced. That suggests the injection of precisely targeted information focusing on group acceptance is the only criteria of success, which makes the group dangerously susceptible to manipulation.
Counter-intuitively echo chambers are primarily desirable for a number of irrational reasons not related to subject matter. People tend to find security in conforming group dynamics, generally fear originality, and strongly enjoy commitment even in opposition to strong evidence.
Contrarily, in echo chamber opposed groups the primary qualifier of information acceptance is process of argumentation. The idea or information that survives a brutal, but process-approved, argument is the most worthy. That form of objectivity can be emotionally disruptive for persons not prepared or understanding of the group process.
reply