I'm starting to feel like echo chambers aren't so bad.

Status
Not open for further replies.

GrizzleBoy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,693
After frequenting other places on the internet that pride themselves on not being echo chambers, I've seen a trend that seems to make the "echo chambers limit honest discussion" thing I've been hearing for a year or so now seem like a lie.

Generally, places that aren't "echo chambers" seem to indeed have a broader variety of opinions in discussions.

The problem that I see, is that people just eventually bunch up into like minded clusters or cliques and then end up fighting a forum war where discussing topics become less important and simply "winning" against the other clique in any petty, trolling, biased, whataboutery way possible becomes the biggest goal.

It's like trying to say that debate club where people pick any random topic and automatically decide to disagree is fostering honest discussion, when really nobody is there to "learn a damn thing from anyone. It's just a competition.

At least in an echo chamber, you have less people arguing in all different manners of "bad faith" simply to win against some "other side". People who at least agree on a base level are more likely to share ideas and find some kind of middle ground between them than people who talk about each other like they are the root cause of all the bad things in life.

It's much easier to find rational and nuanced discussions amongst people who start on the same or at least similar page. You can get deeper into a topic with different views on that one topic.

With "honest discussion chambers" it seems like you just get the most extreme of every side shouting at each other the loudest about whether the subject of a topic even exists in real life, let alone anything deeper about that topic.

For me, it seems that a true neutral who wants to hear "honest discussion" would likely learn a lot more by just reading a bunch of different echo chambers and making their decision, rather than reading post after post and thread after thread of intra forum wars that can barely get past the first phase of discussion.

In conclusion, I think echo chambers (including those you dont agree with) are okay, if used responsibly and not used as a sole source of ideas and information.

/tired, random, slightly intoxicated rambling.
 
Last edited:

skillzilla81

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,353
Living as a black dude, echo chambers are how I survive when I have to step into other spaces. There's comfort in knowing there are other people out there who have to deal with the same things I do on the daily, even if it's often sad and stressful.
 

entremet

Member
Oct 26, 2017
36,627
I still think they're rather limiting. People used to brag on GAF how they got all their news from GAF. That's a terrifying thought.

But discussion forums are mostly about fun and timewasting, so most being echo chambers are fine.
 

More_Badass

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,926
It isn’t what you’re talking about just a club or peer group? I mean, there’s a difference between “echo chamber” and a group with shared interests/experiences

The latter comes together out of similar interests (you like hiking? Let’s start a hiking club. You’re on the spectrum? There’s a peer support group on campus), while the former is a negative subtractive effort from silencing and rejecting dissenting information
 

Duane

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
4,413
I don't think so-called echo chambers are a bad thing as long as they're not your ONLY source of input.
 
Oct 27, 2017
9,629
Echo chamber is just an insult. It's meant to open up an avenue for putrid hate speech. It's never used as a valid criticism.
 

Gyro Zeppeli

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,540
I disagree. You need dissenting opinion in any debate if you expect to be challenged in any new ideas put forth, providing they are not nonsensical and ridiculous. If they can qualify as valid, then it's better for all parties. Echo chambers (of the left and right) simply serve to reaffirm the beliefs of those who subscribe to them. They are stroking their moral egos. In the context of feeling safe from any danger, it goes without saying that no person should be issuing threats of violence, racism, sexism, etc. I can see why an echo chamber would be beneficial for instances like those, but I would offer the perspective that, in a way, it's like hiding from reality. Rather than quarantining yourself off, you should fight it head-on and stomp out the discrimination and bigotry.
 

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
16,227
Echo chambers are comfortable, but that doesn't mean they don't have negative consequences and don't lead to extreme viewpoints
 

NoName999

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
5,906
Here's the flaw with the "echo chamber" argument.

Say there's a forum for knitters. Where everyone talks about knitting, its history, and techniques on how to knit.

You really think the person crying "Knitting suck!" is gonna be at that forum in good faith?
 

LosDaddie

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,622
Longwood, FL
As long as you can actually acknowledge that you’re only seeking out places & news that reaffirm your opinions/beliefs, then sure, there’s nothing wrong with it.

Everyone likes to be told they’re right, and The Good Guy.
 

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
16,227
Echo chamber is just an insult. It's meant to open up an avenue for putrid hate speech. It's never used as a valid criticism.
The alt-right came to power in no small part due to echo chambers. Bad faith arguements should be shut down, but it's worth assessing genuine and sincere arguements from the other side and then critically analyzing. If their reasoning is actually garbage, then you should be able to judge that from their arguement and throw that viewpoint in the trash. But only ever liking spaces where everyone thinks the exact same way and where disagreements are infrequent is unhealthy and hinders critical thinking
 

entremet

Member
Oct 26, 2017
36,627
Echo chamber is just an insult. It's meant to open up an avenue for putrid hate speech. It's never used as a valid criticism.
Not all the time. For example, when this site launched there were more conservative voices. They left or stopped participating in political talk for the most the part. Usually that's what you think of when you think about echo chamber, a single dominant viewpoint expressed.
 

Melkezadek

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,034
Living as a black dude, echo chambers are how I survive when I have to step into other spaces. There's comfort in knowing there are other people out there who have to deal with the same things I do on the daily, even if it's often sad and stressful.
I agree with this so intensely.

I deal with people everyday that are uncomfortable even making eye contact with me. I hate this.
 

More_Badass

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,926
Yea, an echo chamber isn’t inherently bad, but is so when it’s the only exposure someone has to something.
Those aren’t usually what’s considered an echo chamber though? Like some people are describing what might be a campus club or support group and placing them under “echo chamber”. An ethnic neighborhood like El Barrio isn’t an echo chamber
 

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
16,227
Here's the flaw with the "echo chamber" argument.

Say there's a forum for knitters. Where everyone talks about knitting, its history, and techniques on how to knit.

You really think the person crying "Knitting suck!" is gonna be at that forum in good faith?
Maybe not. But that's a very specific case and not one where the concept of echo chambers is really important tbh. But only ever hanging around people who share the same views as you is dangerous and leads to extremism. This is a proven fact. There are plenty of ways to avoid this as well. Such as hanging around multiple communities for example
 

Kyougar

Member
Nov 3, 2017
7,312
Here's the flaw with the "echo chamber" argument.

Say there's a forum for knitters. Where everyone talks about knitting, its history, and techniques on how to knit.

You really think the person crying "Knitting suck!" is gonna be at that forum in good faith?

Wrong analogy.

The discussion and group building would be about the right way to knit, the best way to get the result, the best materials, etc.
 

entremet

Member
Oct 26, 2017
36,627
This is bizarrely wrong. What are sites like FreeRepublic or r/the_donald if not right wing echo chambers?
Don't forget Facebook! They're algorithm is based on the fact that we like echo chambers. I don't they're wrong either.

Has there been long running internet community that was known for lively debate across a plurality of viewpoints. They're hard to find.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Oct 25, 2017
55,753
Not all the time. For example, when this site launched there were more conservative voices. They left or stopped participating in political talk for the most the part. Usually that's what you think of when you think about echo chamber, a single dominant viewpoint expressed.
You realize the spectrum of moderate to far left is so vast that we could have no conservatives here and it still wouldn't be an echo chamber right?

It also probably doesn't help that conservatives in US, UK, Germany, Canada are all going farther and farther right that being a conservative in 2018 is becoming less and less frankly worthy of respect.
 

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
16,227
kind of like echo chambers
Yeah, it's kind of funny that the criticism for avoiding echo chambers is that they'll become echo chambers anyways lol

There's also a difference between a safe space and an echo chamber. A safe space is a temporary retreat for when the world is frustrating you and you need to vent. It only becomes an echo chamber if you refuse to ever leave it
 

Necromanti

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,579
Not all the time. For example, when this site launched there were more conservative voices. They left or stopped participating in political talk for the most the part. Usually that's what you think of when you think about echo chamber, a single dominant viewpoint expressed.
Relatively speaking, though, there's more disagreement and debate here on issues than there are in the places that love to dole out that "criticism".
 

More_Badass

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,926
kind of like echo chambers
No, simply sharing similar interests or experiences doesn’t equal an echo chamber. That’s a club or a support group or a forum.

An echo chamber actively rejects and silences opposing/dissenting information while placing certain ideology on a pedestal
 

entremet

Member
Oct 26, 2017
36,627
Relatively speaking, though, there's more disagreement and debate here on issues than there are in the places that love to dole out that "criticism".
There is, but it's mostly under the progressive framework. There are also factions within liberals as well, so it's not like everyone agrees.

I hold liberal views on practically everything that matters, but am an unabashed capitalist as well. However, there are others who see capitalism as a scourge on society and any true progressive should be for its abolishment.
 

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,695
So, I've been having a tough time finding the citation for this... but there was an episode of Stuff You Should Know where the hosts mentioned how studies of confirmation bias in the brain show similar dopamine patterns to when drug addicts get their first hit of a drug that they're addicted to.

It was mentioned in passing in an episode of SYSK like 2 years ago, and wasn't even in a podcast episode about confirmation bias, echo chambers, or anything like that. I've been trying to find some scholarly citation for it for at least a year now, but its a tough thing to google... I can't figure out what phrases to google to get quality results. But, the SYSK guys don't usually just make shit up (at least, when they're being serious), especially with something like this. I've even reached out to them to ask, but never got a response. It's something I'm interested in mostly for when I end up inevitably arguing with my father who has turned into a Fox News drone ... My father is a smart guy, Ivy educated, law degree, incredibly well read, but over the last 4-6 years, he's progressively retreated further and further into echo chambers. The evening TV at their house is always Fox News, and they know I don't approve of it and think it's complete utter trash, but then also, I saw a NewsMax issue in their bathroom, something that my dad wouldn't have gone near 8+ years ago. He's always been moderate, we had subscriptions to the NYT and WSJ growing up, The New Yorker, Atlantic, and National Review. We were a fairly classical liberal household, but in the last 8ish years, my dad has not only moved Right (which I don't really care about), but he's been moving progressively towards the antagonistic, idiot Right, and he's been retreating into echo chambers. He doesn't even subscribe to the National Review anymore because Fox News tells him Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz can't be trusted (well, that's how I see it, at least)... These are like central voices in American conservatism over the last 30 years are now either "too liberal," or too something. My old man is still a reasonable person, he's an attorney who you can have lengthy reasonable arguments with, and I'm very eager to find some scholarly citation behind the affects of confirmation bias on the brain, because I thoroughly believe that their 4-minutes-of-hate, which is more like 120-minutes of hate, where they tune into Fox News at night and tune out from reality is the equivalent of a drug addict getting their fix.

Echo chambers might make you feel good, but they are most certainly bad for you, even if confirmation bias feels very good. At worst it just makes you dumber. This doesn't mean you have to seek out conflicting opinions, but rather, to pursue sources that give you those conflicting points of view or perspectives in a responsible way.

I'd levy that echo chambers and confirmation bias are generally bad for democracies and Western civilization, but that they can still have a place in advancing Western democratic ideals... or at least... ideals that still fit into Western civilization. For instance, if you're having a discussion about smart investing, it makes sense to have that discussion in an echo chamber where there aren't people trying to tear down the liberal economic order in every post. You're never going to have a productive discussion about smart investment if a radical economic anarchist, extreme libertarian, or social-anarchist is posting their creed upending the economic world order every post. And, same with philosophies. If you're trying to advance liberal causes, a think tank open to mostly only progressive ideas has value, because if there's a libertarian or conservative cabal in that think tank that is constantly undermining the value of the think tank, nobody will be able to make progress. Likewise with conservative circles, or religious groups: If a group of Catholics are arguing about doctrines of the faith -- say, the Assumption of Mary into Heaven -- having someone make 'God Delusion' Richard Dawkins arguments every other point isn't going to be useful. There *is* a usefulness to echo chambers, but for your individual brain and for the health of democracies and Western civilization, there is also a great usefulness for people to break out of their echo chamber and instead of only seeking to have their biases confirmed, to instead have their biases challenged.

That, though, is a very uncomfortable thing to do. It's uncomfortable to have your biases challenged, and very comfortable to have your biases confirmed.

-- edit

This is one of the reasons why I was strongly against the backlash against NPR last week when they had the critical piece on white supremacists, but many people like me on the left were critical of NPR for having a prominent alt-right white supremacist in the piece. WHile the host was antagonistic to the white supremacist, many people complained about it and NPR released a follow-up piece justifying the segment. My take on this is, sure, I get why someone might get upset about someone being (apparently) "given a platform" for something, but if you're a person who reliably listens to NPR or reads NPR pieces, then they've mentally prepared you throughout the years to be able to confront perspectives that are uncomfortable to you. If you're not someone who has listened to NPR, say that you're someone on the Right who criticizes NPR As being a bunch of leftist socialist liberals, or,s ay you're someone on the further left who criticizes NPR for being neoliberal globalists or what have you, then it's going to be a lot harder for you to be able to confront alternative viewpoints from you're own... because it's just such a threatening concept if it's not something you're used to.

This is how I feel about NYT editorials, as well, that are written by mainstream conservatives or neoconservatives. Some other people on the left feel so threatened by them and castigate the New York Times for giving conservatives a platform, even if it's just one editorial out of 20 that has a conservative bias in a given day or given issue. The existence of that one article that has a contrary bias seems to be threatening, or it seems to undo the rest of the good work that the paper does. But, one of my thoughts is that if you're a person who regularly reads the New York Times, then the NYT has made you mentally acute enough to be able to confront alternative viewpoints, arguments, and perspectives. If you're not someone who regularly reads the NYT (either someone on the right who thinks the NYT is the vanguard of Fake Liberal News, or someone on the further left who, similarly, thinks the NYT is a neoliberal secret-conservative publication), then you're not equipped to confront the reality that your perception of the world is not the only valid one.

(also I'm using NYT and NPR as examples here, but you could sub in just about any reputable center-left news publication in America and you'd find similar arguments and counter-arguments)
 
Last edited:

Parthenios

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
7,837
"Echo chamber" doesn't mean "a community with similar values."

Echo chambers are feedback loops of uncritical thought which tends to drive the beliefs of that group in outlier directions. In larger groups there's typically some sort of corrective measure that prevents this, but smaller groups are super susceptible to this.

Echo chambers are basically the Galapagos Islands, where everyone evolves into a radical-beaked finch.
 

Kotto

Member
Nov 3, 2017
3,775
Living as a black dude, echo chambers are how I survive when I have to step into other spaces. There's comfort in knowing there are other people out there who have to deal with the same things I do on the daily, even if it's often sad and stressful.
Exactly. If I had to read or listen to some stupid shit all day, I'm going to feel like I am alone on my own thoughts or life.

Black people always gravitate towards each other, though. Where else are you going to get pointers to where the good barbers are at in town?
 
Nov 2, 2017
3,723
You need to know what the counter points are to your grand narrative. You need to be made uncomfortable, sometimes. You don't necessarily need to interact with the opposition, but at the very least, you want to know what they think about every element of ideology so you're never caught of guard.

I still think they're rather limiting. People used to brag on GAF how they got all their news from GAF. That's a terrifying thought.

But discussion forums are mostly about fun and timewasting, so most being echo chambers are fine.

Yeah, that was me, mostly.

2016.

Never again.

It's incredible to me that more people seem to have doubled down after that event instead of learning from it.
 

SugarNoodles

Member
Nov 3, 2017
8,627
Portland, OR
Not all the time. For example, when this site launched there were more conservative voices. They left or stopped participating in political talk for the most the part. Usually that's what you think of when you think about echo chamber, a single dominant viewpoint expressed.
Nonsense. There are plenty of disagreements to be had without legitimizing harmful viewpoints for the sake of false neutrality.

The fact that no one is saying “climate change isn’t real” doesn’t mean no one is disagreeing about climate change. It just means that the discussions that *are* happening don’t get hung up on patently false information.

Similarly, productive discussions about sexism don’t need to include viewpoints from people who think that sexism is acceptable.
 

NoName999

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
5,906
And guys,

Are there people getting banned for supporting lower taxes or being religious? I doubt it.

Like if you're worried about being banned due being misrepresented, then either be clearer with your points. Or just stop pussyfooting around and say what you really mean.
 

Aaronrules380

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
16,227
Nonsense. There are plenty of disagreements to be had without legitimizing harmful viewpoints for the sake of false neutrality.

The fact that no one is saying “climate change isn’t real” doesn’t mean no one is disagreeing about climate change. It just means that the discussions that *are* happening don’t get hung up on patently false information.

Similarly, productive discussions about sexism don’t need to include viewpoints from people who think that sexism is acceptable.
yep. An echo chamber champions one viewpoint to the exclusion of all others. Thus having many view points but excluding a few dangerous ones is not the same thing
 

Deleted member 8861

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
10,564
That's only because the terms people are arguing about being "boosted" in echo chambers is basic human decency. That's what makes decrying them in their current state stupid, because not allowing a sincere attack on say, LGBT people is something people out there are compelled to call an "echo chamber".

That's not even to say that people can't be sexist/racist/etc in an echo chamber. As long as people are open to getting educated and adapting their views, discussing things in a way that might be perceived as bigoted in some way should be allowable, IMO.
 

entremet

Member
Oct 26, 2017
36,627
Nonsense. There are plenty of disagreements to be had without legitimizing harmful viewpoints for the sake of false neutrality.

The fact that no one is saying “climate change isn’t real” doesn’t mean no one is disagreeing about climate change. It just means that the discussions that *are* happening don’t get hung up on patently false information.

Similarly, productive discussions about sexism don’t need to include viewpoints from people who think that sexism is acceptable.
Weird strawman. I never mentioned the conservative views in question. Unless you think GOP brand of conservatism is an all encompassing hodgepodge of bigotry. Which I don't blame you for thinking that!

But conservativism is broader than the GOP and I say this as someone who does not hold those views. Small government, freer markets, low regulations and so on. None of those are tried to bigotry.
 

Baji Boxer

Chicken Chaser
Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,544
This place isn't an echo chamber. There's still a lot of heated disagreements and wide variety of discussion. What it does try to be is a safe space for various minorities to join in on discussion. That does leave a big chunk of conservatism out of any discussion as many of those groups are officially bigoted (like the Republican party). But we do have some conservatives who are primarily Libertarian who have no problems with not getting banned.

There's still a huge range of opinions on many topics while cutting out most of those Trump voter types.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.