SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Oft times we see accusations of "group think" here on SoylentNews. Now there is some actual science on the formation and function of "echo chambers", as reported by SESYNC:
A new study from researchers at the University of Maryland (UMD) and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) demonstrates that the highly contentious debate on climate change is fueled in part by how information flows throughout policy networks.
...
"Our research shows how the echo chamber can block progress toward a political resolution on climate change. Individuals who get their information from the same sources with the same perspective may be under the impression that theirs is the dominant perspective, regardless of what the science says," said Dr. Dana R. Fisher, a professor of sociology at UMD and corresponding author who led the research.
I would guess, based on this study abstract (actual paper unfortunately behind paywall), that SoylentNews is in no danger of becoming an echo chamber, but we seem to have some refugees who are still stuck in particular bubbles.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:06AM
Its also highly ironic.
All humans, by cognitive necessity, exist in a bubble of some sort. The only variable is how "large" (over n fuzzy dimensions) this bubble is. Self reporting of bubble size is irrelevant and no real work that I know of has been done on developing impartial measures of such has been conclusive. (and is perhaps impossible) So implying explicit knowledge bubble sizes is just ridiculous.
At best and only in certain cases you might be able to make relative measures but anything non-empirical cannot be accepted due to the subject matter.
For example. The poster of the article implies that he believes he could identify those that exist in a bubble and that he is not in one himself. What a laugh.
We live in a world where it is impossible for the human brain to rationally and completely conceptualise in all its nuance. This is not a bad thing. Were it not so we would be rendered incapable of action due to the huge amount of data that would have to be processed to decide to even open our eyes.
So instead we take shortcuts by open our physical eyes and deluding ourselves that our internal eye is fully open and get on with things: happy in ignorance...some more than others....
Such it is to be human...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:27AM
For example. The poster of the article implies that he believes he could identify those that exist in a bubble and that he is not in one himself. What a laugh.
Good point!
However, it deserves a PeeWee Herman response.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:35AM
Yes, very true.
I saw a similar discussion (more of a lecture) some years ago. It started out on a different subject, transmissions, as I recall, but soon it brought forth exactly what you suggested.
I've found a short-ish video of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgVtzJZd5VQ [youtube.com]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:27AM
I have to say, in agreement with poster in a thread a day or two ago, that this tendency to just post a link to a video on youtube without comment is not to be encouraged. A bit more of a description? Some reason to actually spend time looking at it? That said, that video was damn funny, and I say that as someone with more than a casual knowledge of automatic transmissions.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:44AM
I think we've seen a lot of these echo chambers at work, and we informally scream about them often. See FoxNews, Slashdot, tumblr, ad nauseum for real world examples we're all likely too familiar with. The scariest thing to me is the groups that are forming and the continual levels of extremism that they appear to stretch toward. I'm glad someone is looking at it, if even in a very limited scope.
I'd like to believe there's the mental Harrison Bergeron among us who are genuinely capable of truly existing beyond that. I have no evidence of such a thing and I'm not claiming to be any such person; I'm neither that bright nor open minded, but it's a particular form of optimism that I desperately hold on to.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:04AM
That ability can be cultivated. Cultivate it in yourself, then pass it on to others.
Some people ossify when they get old. Others broaden their perspective through experience.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:44PM
You mention those sites and you leave off this one?
NSA is bad! (NSA is bad!. . . NSA is bad!. . nsa is bad!. . .)
Snowden is infallible! (Snowden is infallible! . . . Snowden is infallible! . . . snowden is infallible! . . .)
All police are evil! (All police are evil! . . . All police are evil! . . . all police are evil! . . .)
Some oversimplified "libertarian" rant! (Some oversimplified "libertarian" rant! . . . Some oversimplified "libertarian" rant! . . . some oversimplified "libertarian" rant! . . .)
Assange is not a douche! (Assange is not a douche! . . . Assange is not a douche! . . . assange is not a douche! . . .)
Can't you just hear the echos?? Echo chambers define the sacred cows of a site, and boy is there a lot of mooing here.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Thursday May 28 2015, @11:05PM
The comment in the summary covered SN. Didn't think it was necessary to mention, but yes, you're generally right.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 4, Informative) by FatPhil on Thursday May 28 2015, @08:01AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboencabulator#Bud_Haggart_video_script
Hilarious. Gonna keep that one. Thank you.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday May 28 2015, @08:12PM
Yes, I get it. You failed to understand what I was saying.
Let's assess whether this is appropriate:
a) I did not use a lot of jargon as in the video
b) My intent was not to confuse but to explain in simple terms
c) I stuck to the point
So what we REALLY have here is your simple inability to understand what I was saying.
Sort of like you are restricted in your bubble of ignorance really...
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 28 2015, @08:17PM
More likely I just grew weary of your pompous grandiosity (of which, this was but a mild example).
You really are full of yourself, aren't you!
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Friday May 29 2015, @08:28PM
You should try breathing through your nose then.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday May 28 2015, @03:05PM
Wonder if the moneky theory bears any relationship to the size of a person's bubble. A person who is comfortable with a small circle of friends, as opposed to someone who knows EVERYONE would have a smaller bubble?
If that be the case, I guess I'm in a pretty small bubble. I long ago gave up trying to remember the names of all the people at work. I just don't even try. There are to many, and turnover is to rapid - instead of trying to remember names, I just smile and say "Hi".
Or, maybe it has nothing to do with the size of the bubble, maybe it determines what kind of bubble you're in.
Ehhhh - this shit could get to deep for me real quick! Do me a favor, and write a science fiction adventure about it.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Thursday May 28 2015, @08:07PM
I would imagine so. But that is only over a set of specific dimensions.
Bubbles are not a single set or even easily definable.