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: 2, Insightful) by Placenta on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:10AM
It doesn't just seem like bait. It is bait. That part should have been removed by the editor prior to the submission being accepted.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:38AM
But then it would be a troll. wouldn't it?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:38AM
Actually, a snide remark by the editor would have been very much apt.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:59AM
Snide? This is Science, gentlepersons! If you disagree, you must provide evidence! Evidence that is not only accepted in your particular echo chamber. You see, the intent is to provoke rational dialogue on an objective level, to cross the boundaries of the echo chambers. I grow pessimistic of the possibility of such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @11:55PM
Sorry, you've got it backwards. Extraordinary claims must be supported by exraordinary evidence.
Get back with us after your evidence has been purged of hockey-stick manipulations, "revisionist" adjustments to historical temperature records, and at least one of your predictive models actually shows some track record of success.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:40PM
Allow me to make that remark instead.
I'd like to formally propose that aristarchus is one of those refugees among us who are still stuck in particular bubbles.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:58PM
I'd like to formally propose that aristarchus is one of those refugees among us who are still stuck in particular bubbles.
I appreciate the formal proposal, but I fear that it is not the case. If it were, I should be able to find somebody who agrees with me to feed back to me what I want to hear, so that I would think that I am in the majority. Instead, everyone is saying I am wrong, and that the submission is bait. So now I feel un-bubbleified, like I lost my homoies, which is really uncomfortable. Could you just agree with me, just this one time, and just for a little, until I get used to being a voice in the wilderness? Please?