Echo Chambers

[Doctor Amadeus]

I’m not convinced of or a big believer in this conveyor that people live in bubbles as a reason why people will be wrong or hold whatever opinions or beliefs whether left or right. I actually think it’s a bit of the opposite or at least for me. So it got me thinking what about you what do you do to make sure you are exposed to new ideas or even have your views changed.

For me I’d say I’ve done a lot whether it’s simply for entertainment or because I’m a big believer in seeing things you need to see as opposed to what you always want to see. I stole that from Joss Whedon.

So the question is:
What are some sources you have read, watched or listen to that you DO NOT agree with or are convinced in anyway from?

For me in no particular order.

Documentaries
Zeitgeist
Loose Change (Including Updates)
Various YOUTUBE

Literature
Dianetics
The Quran
The Book of Mormon

News(including publications)
Huffington Post
Fox News
CNN
MSNBC

Authors
Jordan Peterson
Rush Limbaugh
Dennis Prager
Ben Shapiro
Bill O’Reilly
Charles Murray
Steven Pinker

Media
Joe Rogan
Philip Defranco
Glenn Beck
Bill Maher
Sam Harris
Christina Sommers

Off the top of my head I’ve watched a lot of, read or listened to lectures from all of the above. I don’t agree with any. How about you?

[schwank05]

I very much agree with Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro. Jordan Peterson is so damn dry I can't stand more than 2-3 mins of him at a single sitting. I cannot stand to watch any network news they are all a joke. I have no real interest in sitting there and reading books, I don't have the time I work 10-15 hours a day and need to spend time with Family and sleep. But I do watch lectures and speeches from many people. I am a Right Winger, but have listened or at least tried to listen to publications from across the Aisle some of the stuff I can sit through, but the whole Identity politics gets old very quick.

[Agrossive]

I listen to NPR bash Trump 24/7 on the radio while at work then I watch fox news before bed. I figure I get both narratives and let myself find the truth and whats right in my own opinion based on both sources.

[Grimbold21]

So you've read some of those people and still think they're alt right, racists, white supremacists, misogynists?

No, you don't live in your own bubble.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I my opinion it's human nature to find yourself in a bubble and it's up to the individual to break out of it. Most people don't want to even hear people they don't like let alone want to hear their points of view. The hardest thing to do is to try and understand where they are coming from and how they got to their view points. It's something you have to constantly be aware of to work on.

The bubble is a fallacy’s most people don’t live in one. It’s just a cop out to marginalize people’s choice. If some don’t agree then they haven’t been informed or don’t know. Which could be true but not automatically because pumake a choice don’t agree or hear enough.

- - - Updated - - -

I my opinion it's human nature to find yourself in a bubble and it's up to the individual to break out of it. Most people don't want to even hear people they don't like let alone want to hear their points of view. The hardest thing to do is to try and understand where they are coming from and how they got to their view points. It's something you have to constantly be aware of to work on.

The bubble is a fallacy’s most people don’t live in one. It’s just a cop out to marginalize people’s choice. If some don’t agree then they haven’t been informed or don’t know. Which could be true but not automatically because pumake a choice don’t agree or hear enough.

- - - Updated - - -

So you've read some of those people and still think they're alt right, racists, white supremacists, misogynists?

No, you don't live in your own bubble.

Yes because I’m not sold on what people say vs their actions. Evidence is life and experience along with a process of knowledge. Not sitting and listening and sucking up everything as fact whether you like to agree or disagree.

[I Push Buttons]

I’m not convinced of or a big believer in this conveyor that people live in bubbles as a reason why people will be wrong or hold whatever opinions or beliefs whether left or right.

Echo chambers definitely exist my dude... Go over to Reddit and take a gander at any of the political related boards, especially the fringe boards like /r/The_Donald or /r/LateStageCapitalism. Most of them ban anyone who discusses an opposing viewpoint and many of them actually have bots enabled that automatically ban people to prevent them from ever participating in the first place if they have participated in some opposing board.

And if you are feeling especially brave go check at /pol/ on you know where.

Then there is the blight that is social media where algorithms and such literally tailor your feed around what you like to click and surround you with nothing but your own biases so you click as much as possible and make them the most money.

Echo chambers 100% exist and they are definitely a problem.

So the question is:
What are some sources you have read, watched or listen to that you DO NOT agree with or are convinced in anyway from?

On topic, most of the time when I seek out things I agree with, I am exposed to the things I disagree with; with regard to videos anyways. For example, if I want to watch some videos featuring proponents of something I agree with on some particular topic, rarely is it just them by themselves espousing their beliefs to the camera, its almost always some form of debate where those of opposing viewpoints also speak and give their take on an issue.

So in that sense, on basically any topic I am always watching people I do not agree with; though no one in particular. That is, I am not specifically seeking out opposing viewpoints.

Also with the above I am referring to academics/experts mostly. Like if I want to watch a video about some aspect of economics or some such, I will watch Milton Friedman, I won't watch Joe Random YouTube Content Creator who just wax poetics for 20 minutes about why he is right and everyone else is wrong.

[Freshouttajail]

I’m not convinced of or a big believer in this conveyor that people live in bubbles as a reason why people will be wrong or hold whatever opinions or beliefs whether left or right. I actually think it’s a bit of the opposite or at least for me. So it got me thinking what about you what do you do to make sure you are exposed to new ideas or even have your views changed.

For me I’d say I’ve done a lot whether it’s simply for entertainment or because I’m a big believer in seeing things you need to see as opposed to what you always want to see. I stole that from Joss Whedon.

So the question is:
What are some sources you have read, watched or listen to that you DO NOT agree with or are convinced in anyway from?

For me in no particular order.

Documentaries
Zeitgeist
Loose Change (Including Updates)
Various YOUTUBE

Literature
Dianetics
The Quran
The Book of Mormon

News(including publications)
Huffington Post
Fox News
CNN
MSNBC

Authors
Jordan Peterson
Rush Limbaugh
Dennis Prager
Ben Shapiro
Bill O’Reilly
Charles Murray
Steven Pinker

Media
Joe Rogan
Philip Defranco
Glenn Beck
Bill Maher
Sam Harris
Christina Sommers

Off the top of my head I’ve watched a lot of, read or listened to lectures from all of the above. I don’t agree with any. How about you?

Bubble and echo chambers aren't the same thing. A bubble is when you have your own view and stick to it and ignore the rest of the world. An echo chamber is when you only talk with people with the same opinion as you so it sounds like an "echo" during a discussion because you're both just saying the same shit and agreeing without opening yourself to opposite opinions.

I've checked out most of your list and at least know all the others. To answer your question directly I'd say that I don't 100% agree with anyone/anything there but I find a lot of similar positions with a few of them. To be more precise on the political side I'm pretty similar to Ben Shapiro, mostly conservative but not a fan of Trump, I like how Ben will talk about the good thing Trump did while saying he's a dork for tweeting some stupid shit, in the same sentence.

[NED funded]

I am probably in an echo chamber lol. I dont really go out of my way to read or watch stuff that disagrees w me with and most of the stuff I read is just for assigments so Im not really passionate about it. I guess thats why I come here lol.

[Puupi]

The biggest echo chamber of them all: Facebook.

[Independent voter]

https://www.mmo-champion.com/forums/359-Politicshttps://www.mmo-champion.com/forums/359-Politics

[Doctor Amadeus]

Echo chambers definitely exist my dude... Go over to Reddit and take a gander at any of the political related boards, especially the fringe boards like /r/The_Donald or /r/LateStageCapitalism. Most of them ban anyone who discusses an opposing viewpoint and many of them actually have bots enabled that automatically ban people to prevent them from ever participating in the first place if they have participated in some opposing board.

And if you are feeling especially brave go check at /pol/ on you know where.

Then there is the blight that is social media where algorithms and such literally tailor your feed around what you like to click and surround you with nothing but your own biases so you click as much as possible and make them the most money.

Echo chambers 100% exist and they are definitely a problem.



On topic, most of the time when I seek out things I agree with, I am exposed to the things I disagree with; with regard to videos anyways. For example, if I want to watch some videos featuring proponents of something I agree with on some particular topic, rarely is it just them by themselves espousing their beliefs to the camera, its almost always some form of debate where those of opposing viewpoints also speak and give their take on an issue.

So in that sense, on basically any topic I am always watching people I do not agree with; though no one in particular. That is, I am not specifically seeking out opposing viewpoints.

Also with the above I am referring to academics/experts mostly. Like if I want to watch a video about some aspect of economics or some such, I will watch Milton Friedman, I won't watch Joe Random YouTube Content Creator who just wax poetics for 20 minutes about why he is right and everyone else is wrong.

Those aren’t echo chambers those are entertainment sites where people go to have fun. It’s like saying people who go to McDonald’s never eat anything good for them.

McDonald’s isn’t designed to be healthy or unhealthy it’s just supposed to be fast food.

Just like WoW isn’t an echo chamber or Facebook. But because people are passionate everyone feels the need to push as a result people do push back and flee. Safe space a familiar corner

I’m just trying to down a boss in WoW I don’t give a shit about everyone’s opinion on world peace.

[Dezerte]

I think social media who uses algorithms to recommend you "more of the same" is redefining what an echo chamber is. It's on another level compared to traditional media.

[P for Pancetta]

I listen to NPR bash Trump 24/7 on the radio while at work then I watch fox news before bed. I figure I get both narratives and let myself find the truth and whats right in my own opinion based on both sources.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

The bubble is a fallacy’s most people don’t live in one. It’s just a cop out to marginalize people’s choice. If some don’t agree then they haven’t been informed or don’t know. Which could be true but not automatically because pumake a choice don’t agree or hear enough.

The bubble is a fallacy’s most people don’t live in one. It’s just a cop out to marginalize people’s choice. If some don’t agree then they haven’t been informed or don’t know. Which could be true but not automatically because pumake a choice don’t agree or hear enough.

Yes because I’m not sold on what people say vs their actions. Evidence is life and experience along with a process of knowledge. Not sitting and listening and sucking up everything as fact whether you like to agree or disagree.

The bubble is a is a phrase we invented to describe a phenomenon that exists.

The atmosphere could be counted as a bubble and by that definition everyone would be living in a bubble. On the other hand echo chambers are definitely real, you not believing in it doesn't make it not so. Yet the intricacies of the whole ordeal are complicated and not well understood.

When talking about bubbles we often refer to fringe groups, and by the very definition of the word fringe fringe groups are a minority and therefore it's obvious most people aren't part of a bubble. Yet if we were to be completely honest we'd say the majority is also in a bubble, the plain and boring bubble, but a bubble nonetheless. What many fringe groupies would call the sheeple bubble.

One thing all opinions have in common is that they're not facts, most of them are preferences and quite a few factually wrong. Yet some people, often intellectuals with a higher education hold the opinion that other people's factually incorrect opinions can be swayed just by providing them with ample evidence and facts. And they'll waste their time debating things. The reality is that most of our opinions and preferences are deeply rooted within our subconsciousness and it'll take a lot of effort to change them.

[Ghostpanther]

Reminds me of the song lyrics... "You have to believe in something, or you will fall for anything." There several things in life I have no desire to be exposed to and am happy living in my realm of personal convictions. Also, I been down other roads, so not like I have had no other experiences in circumstances adamantly opposed to my present beliefs.

[petej0]

The bubble is a fallacy’s most people don’t live in one. It’s just a cop out to marginalize people’s choice. If some don’t agree then they haven’t been informed or don’t know. Which could be true but not automatically because pumake a choice don’t agree or hear enough.

It is common for people to associate with like minded people. This is the bubble that is spoken of. Look around and you see it everywhere. Race, religion, socio-economic status, hobbies, lifestyles etc.. For example...you wont find many (if any) emos hanging out with jocks or a nerd hanging with a jugalo.

[Wewlad]

Although my current ideology is solid, I did spend years flirting with many others out of curiosity and still try to learn about others unless they are apparently facetious.

[Doctor Amadeus]

https://www.mmo-champion.com/forums/359-Politicshttps://www.mmo-champion.com/forums/359-Politics

Lmfao gen ot not mmo c are echo chambers if they were people wouldn’t fight alll the time.

[downnola]

I think what's more important than simply not allowing yourself to live in an echo chamber, is to actually consider and try to learn from the people you disagree with. As silly as the title is, the book "How to Read a Book" by Mortimer J. Adler changed how I approach reading, and actually opened my mind to authors I previously disagreed with and closed my mind to.

Here's a few snips from the book that I found incredibly helpful:

Reading a book is a kind of conversation. You may think it is not conversation at all, because the author does all the talking and you have nothing to say. If you think that, you do not realize your full obligation as a reader—and you are not grasping your opportunities.

As a matter of fact, the reader is the one who has the last word. The author has had his say, and then it is the reader’s turn. The conversation between a book and its reader would appear to be an orderly one, each party talking in turn, no interruptions, and so forth. If, however, the reader is undisciplined and impolite, it may be anything but orderly. The poor author cannot defend himself. He cannot say, “Here, wait till I’ve finished, before you start disagreeing.” He cannot protest that the reader has misunderstood him, has missed his point.

Ordinary conversations between persons who confront each other are good only when they are carried on civilly. We are not thinking merely of the civilities according to conventions of social politeness. Such conventions are not really important. What is important is that there is an intellectual etiquette to be observed.

Without it, conversation is bickering rather than profitable communication. We are assuming here, of course, that the conversation is about a serious matter on which men can agree or disagree. Then it becomes important that they conduct themselves well. Otherwise, there is no profit in the enterprise. The profit in good conversation is something learned.

What is true of ordinary conversation is even more true of the rather special situation in which a book has talked to a reader and the reader talks back. That the author is well disciplined, we will take for granted temporarily. That he has conducted his part of the conversation well can be assumed in the case of good books. What can the reader do to reciprocate? What must he do to hold up his end well?

The reader has an obligation as well as an opportunity to talk back. The opportunity is clear. Nothing can stop a reader from pronouncing judgment. The roots of the obligation, however, lie a little deeper in the nature of the relation between books and readers.

If the book is of the sort that conveys knowledge, the author’s aim was to instruct. He has tried to teach. He has tried to convince or persuade his reader about something. His effort is crowned with success only if the reader finally says, “I am taught." You have convinced me that such and such is true, or persuaded me that it is probable.” But even if the reader is not convinced or persuaded, the author’s intention and effort should be respected. The reader owes him a considered judgment. If he cannot say, “I agree,” he should at least have grounds for disagreeing or even for suspending judgment on the question.

We are really saying no more than what we have already said many times. A good book deserves an active reading. The activity of reading does not stop with the work of understanding what a book says. It must be completed by the work of criticism, the work of judging. The undemanding reader fails to satisfy this requirement, probably even more than he fails to analyze and interpret. He not only makes no effort to understand; he also dismisses a book simply by putting it aside and forgetting it. Worse than faintly praising it, he damns it by giving it no critical consideration whatever.

and:

The second general maxim of critical reading is as obvious as the first, but it needs explicit statement, nevertheless, and for the same reason. It is RULE 10, and it can be expressed thus: WHEN YOU DISAGREE, DO SO REASONABLY, AND NOT DISPUTATIOUSLY OR CONTENTIOUSLY . There is no point in winning an argument if you know or suspect you are wrong. Practically, of course, it may get you ahead in the world for a short time. But honesty is the better policy in the slightly longer run.

We learned this maxim first from Plato and Aristotle. In a passage in the Symposium, this interchange occurs:

I cannot refute you, Socrates, said Agathon: Let us assume that what you say is true.
Say rather, Agathon, that you cannot refute the truth; for Socrates is easily refuted.

The passage is echoed in a remark of Aristotle’s in the Ethics. “It would be thought to be better,” he says,

indeed to be our duty, for the sake of maintaining the truth even to destroy what touches us closely, especially as we are philosophers or lovers of wisdom; for, while
both are dear, piety requires us to honor truth above our friends.

Plato and Aristotle here give us advice that most people ignore. Most people think that winning the argument is what matters, not learning the truth.

He who regards conversation as a battle can win only by being an antagonist, only by disagreeing successfully, whether he is right or wrong. The reader who approaches a book in this spirit reads it only to find something he can disagree with. For the disputatious and the contentious, a bone can always be found to pick a quarrel over. It makes no difference whether the bone is really a chip on your own shoulder.

In a conversation that a reader has with a book in the privacy of his own study, there is nothing to prevent the reader from seeming to win the argument. He can dominate the situation. The author is not there to defend himself. If all he wants is the empty satisfaction of seeming to show the author up, the reader can get it readily. He scarcely has to read the book through to get it. Glancing at the first few pages will suffice.

But if he realizes that the only profit in conversation, with living or dead teachers, is what one can learn from them, if he realizes that you win only by gaining knowledge, not by knocking the other fellow down, he may see the futility of mere contentiousness. We are not saying that a reader should not ultimately disagree and try to show where the author is wrong. We are saying only that he should be as prepared to agree as to disagree. Whichever he does should be motivated by one consideration alone—the facts, the truth about the case.

More than honesty is required here. It goes without saying that a reader should admit a point when he sees it. But he also should not feel whipped by having to agree with an author, instead of dissenting. If he feels that way, he is inveterately disputatious. In the light of this second maxim, his problem is seen to be emotional rather than intellectual.

I think approaching subjects in this way is actually more important than reading a 50/50 diet of opposing views. Read authors and writers that make good arguments, or arguments you can't fully grapple with and try to take something away from what they're saying.

With all of that said, Noam Chomsky, Thomas Piketty, Bell Hooks, Murtaza Mohammad Hussain, Gore Vidal, Jeremy Scahill, Jordan Peterson, and Paul Krugman are few writers that I like to read because I disagree with them, but appreciate listening to their arguments. If you really make an effort to understand where someone is coming from, you might even find that you agree with them on some things and/or appreciate their thought process.

[Doctor Amadeus]

It is common for people to associate with like minded people. This is the bubble that is spoken of. Look around and you see it everywhere. Race, religion, socio-economic status, hobbies, lifestyles etc.. For example...you wont find many (if any) emos hanging out with jocks or a nerd hanging with a jugalo.

Yeah and it’s wrong and inconsistent. People enjoy the company of those they get along with. The prerequisite of that isn’t agreement. Unless we are talking high school.

- - - Updated - - -

I think what's more important than simply not allowing yourself to live in an echo chamber, is to actually consider and try to learn from the people you disagree with. As silly as the title is, the book "How to Read a Book" by Mortimer J. Adler changed how I approach reading, and actually opened my mind to authors I previously disagreed with and closed my mind to.

Here's a few snips from the book that I found incredibly helpful:



and:



I think approaching subjects in this way is actually more important than reading a 50/50 diet of opposing views. Read authors and writers that make good arguments, or arguments you can't fully grapple with and try to take something away from what they're saying.

With all of that said, Noam Chomsky, Thomas Piketty, Bell Hooks, Murtaza Mohammad Hussain, Gore Vidal, Jeremy Scahill, Jordan Peterson, and Paul Krugman are few writers that I like to read because I disagree with them, but appreciate listening to their arguments. If you really make an effort to understand where someone is coming from, you might even find that you agree with them on some things and/or appreciate their thought process.

By trying to not live in a echo chamber you by default do. You are looking for people to join a group to agree to disagree.

[Unholyground]

I my opinion it's human nature to find yourself in a bubble and it's up to the individual to break out of it. Most people don't want to even hear people they don't like let alone want to hear their points of view. The hardest thing to do is to try and understand where they are coming from and how they got to their view points. It's something you have to constantly be aware of to work on.

Ya, and if you are an open person you get shit on for allowing other people to possibly change your views on things so there is no winning, not that I care because people can suck it if they don't like that people can change based on new information.