Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday May 28 2015, @03:18AM   Printer-friendly
from the hello-hello-hello dept.

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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:06PM

    by sjames (2882) on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:06PM (#189180) Journal

    That hand is not attached to my arm. I am quite certain that upon even brief observation, all present will agree with that. It is a testable observation.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:15PM (#189187)

    Ok, so the data is

    1) A hammer hit a hand
    2) sjames showed expressions of surprise and pain
    3) the hand is no longer attached to his arm

    Therefore, what would you like to conclude? Perhaps you would like to add additional data.

    I'm not being purposefully dense.

    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:30PM

      by sjames (2882) on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:30PM (#189204) Journal

      Note, the term objective means that independent observers can draw the same conclusion from the same data. It does NOT mean that the village idiot can't get the wrong conclusion.

      Subjective observations are things that are not subject to an independent observation. For example, that in spite of the and not being mine, the hit was painful is a subjective observation because only I actually felt the pain (however briefly). The objective interpretation is that I (the subject) reacted in a manner consistent with experiencing pain.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:34PM (#189367)

        Perhaps we are talking past each other. I am talking about interpreting the data, what conclusions can be drawn. You are talking about the data itself.

        For example, how likely is it that the fake hand was a glove vs totally unattached? Without certain information we would need to guess about that. There are many possibilities like this.

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday May 29 2015, @05:19AM

          by sjames (2882) on Friday May 29 2015, @05:19AM (#189508) Journal

          Conclusions can be more of a sliding scale SOMETIMES. In other cases one party is just being disingenuous. In the example I gave, assuming the block matches a hole in the building, there is really only one conclusion for a sane person to draw. Anyone concluding otherwise is a kook, pure and simple.

          The hand example is close to that. You see the rubber hand on the table. You see the person who was "hit" realizing to his surprise that he is unharmed after all. There really isn't much room for controversy over what actually happened. Consider, is it really sensible to conclude that the real hand detached from the pain and turned to rubber while the guy was clearly once bitten by a radioactive salamander (or was a Timelord within the first few hours after a regeneration) and so grew a new hand? Surely anyone seriously proposing that would at least be laughed at.

          Some cases present more ambiguity but even then there is a boundary of reasonable conclusions. Consider, door broken and expensive TV missing. Most likely cause is a burglary. We must grant that it is not impossible that the owner pawned the set and staged the broken door as an insurance scam, but absent some sort of additional information, it's not the way to bet. Bigfoot wanted to watch the Superbowl is right out of the question absent some REALLY convincing additional evidence. If I reject the latter conclusion, that is not me being "subjective". If we find the pawn ticket in the owner's wallet, there's really not a lot of room for the subjective at all.

          In the most classic coin toss (whose team is going to win), I would describe the arguments and conclusions as more emotional than subjective presuming the teams have similar recent records

          We may perhaps be talking past each other. I would call the bad conclusions above sloppy reasoning or flat out lies, not subjective.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @01:23PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @01:23PM (#189647)

            If coming to the "right" conclusion depends upon background knowledge in any way then it is subjective. Different "subjects" will have had different past experiences and thus beliefs, although in some cases these differences may be negligible.

            Subjective is not a dirty word like you appear to have been trained to think. Denying the use of past experiences while interpreting information can only lead to confusion and error. It is a key part of rational behavior.

            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday May 30 2015, @01:01AM

              by sjames (2882) on Saturday May 30 2015, @01:01AM (#189927) Journal

              Background knowledge isn't in itself subjective either. A coroner's report on cause of death is rarely subjective but it certainly requires background knowledge. Experience can lead to an appropriate conclusion more quickly through short cuts, but as long as the conclusion can then be shown to properly arise from the facts at hand, it remains (or becomes) objective. I certainly wouldn't advise denying their knowledge and experience.

              I see a dog across the street. I called it a dog rather than a giraffe, not because I believe giraffe is a dirty word, but because that's not what I see (for one thing, it's neck is too short :-)

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:45AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:45AM (#189952)

                A coroner's report on cause of death is rarely subjective

                I cannot imagine what leads you to think this other than lack of experience. Do you have a reference for that claim?

                • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:15AM

                  by sjames (2882) on Saturday May 30 2015, @06:15AM (#189998) Journal

                  Ever read a coroner's report? Some are cursory, some are in depth, but none involve the subjective. They describe the condition of the decadent, any remarkable findings, any witness reports and any known conditions surrounding the death. They then describe the death based on those findings. The latter is often identified as opinion since there are often too many unknowns to be more than 90% or so certain.

                  Where do you find the subjective? Where is the part about what it "feels" like the decedent is trying to tell the examiner? Where do you find the stuff that nobody else could have observed had they sat in on the autopsy?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @09:06AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @09:06AM (#190038)

                    Here is my claim "interpreting data is subjective"