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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:45AM
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
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
Here is my claim "interpreting data is subjective"