Is there a way to break an echo chamber?

Not specifically this site. Any political channel where there is particularly strong and consistent imbalance between political opinions is likely to degrade into an echo chamber given enough time. Eventually creating a place where the same few opinions are repated ad nauseam and the people not thinking the same will eventually leave or speak less. Only increasing the singular tone.

So is there a way to break it? Or should echo chambers should be abandoned to their sing their echo? Also, since I'm pretty sure it will appear, justifying it as "but my side is always right" is just a childish black and white world view that shows that there is no actual room for debate, ditto for trying to enforce the notion that disagreeing for your side is siding with the worst of the other side's opinions and beliefs.

inu-kun:
Eventually creating a place where the same few opinions are repated ad nauseam and the people not thinking the same will eventually leave or speak less.

You're missing two important factors of echo chambers: it's not just that some leave or speak less, plenty also increasingly conform to the norm, and the norm can become more extreme.

Ultimately, I don't think much can be done about echo chambers. Chambers could be edited or moderated to control content and keep them fresh, but once authority is introduced into a chamber, there remains the risk it becomes a tool of the authority. Perhaps reduce the number of chambers; the less room there is for ever-smaller cliques, the more people are compelled to expand their horizons. Although perhaps that is counter-productive, and minority views are marginalised to nothing.

Ultimately, I'm not sure you want to tackle echo chambers at all. You want to tackle people, and encourage them to diversify their media consumption.

Heck! If I really knew how to break echo chambers, I would had broken 4chan's by now.

Do we want to break 'echo chambers'? Science actually means something when you have enough studies looking atthe same issue, finding inter-relatable componentry enough to build consensus. True theory only means something if it is based from an understanding that the consensus is there, and what the consensus actually is.

My image of an ideal future isn't where people go into a classroom, get to write whatever random crap they can on a page, and to complain to a teacher how they're impinging their free speech when they get a fail and possible detention for wasting a teacher's time.

If you're not willing to listen to academic consensus, why should people pretend to listen to you simply because you have a mouth and wish to run it?

I have no problems shutting off anyone's microphone when they refuse to actually answer a question andyet still pretend they have aright to other people's time. We should do it in political 'debates' more often. If a politician starts spouting off about how great [insert nebulous concept here] is without actually talking about their tax proposal? Shut off the microphone.

We do it in general assembly, we do it in workplaces, we do it in universities ... failing to see why taxpayer funded mouth runners should be granted any liberties.

I try by being as contrarian as possible even when I am the losing side.

Because every opinion needs to be challenged to see its true validity and worth.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Do we want to break 'echo chambers'? Science actually means something when you have enough studies looking atthe same issue, finding inter-relatable componentry enough to build consensus. True theory only means something if it is based from an understanding that the consensus is there, and what the consensus actually is.

My image of an ideal future isn't where people go into a classroom, get to write whatever random crap they can on a page, and to complain to a teacher how they're impinging their free speech when they get a fail and possible detention for wasting a teacher's time.

If you're not willing to listen to academic consensus, why should people pretend to listen to you simply because you have a mouth and wish to run it?

I have no problems shutting off anyone's microphone when they refuse to actually answer a question andyet still pretend they have aright to other people's time. We should do it in political 'debates' more often. If a politician starts spouting off about how great [insert nebulous concept here] is without actually talking about their tax proposal? Shut off the microphone.

We do it in general assembly, we do it in workplaces, we do it in universities ... failing to see why taxpayer funded mouth runners should be granted any liberties.

I have no idea what you are talking about or its connection to the subject material (which is kinda ironic considering the last paragraphs), my guess is that I annoyed you somewhere.

If we go about "this is against "science"": Science is not free of politics so we shouldn't imagine otherwise to make a case for its absolute authroity. Not to mention that in a lot of cases in politics there is no clear concensus in the science community on a lot of subject (economics) or even ways to quantify facts (ethics).

inu-kun:

I have no idea what you are talking about or its connection to the subject material (which is kinda ironic considering the last paragraphs), my guess I annoyed you somewhere.

If we go about "this is against "science"": Science is not free of politics so we shouldn't imagine otherwise to make a case for its absolute authroity. Not to mention that in a lot of cases in politics there is no clear concensus in the science community on a lot of subject (economics) or even ways to quantify facts (ethics).

Frankly, whenever I come across the criticism of someplace being an 'echo chamber', more often than not it's based out of the idea that people either run their mouth and get in trouble for it and refuse to take responsibility for that, because believe it or not people don't have to take your shit in the private sector... or it's about an elabourate conspiracy theory about universities.

So I figure given your post history, just going to cut you off right there. Given this was your reply, I'm guessing you hadn't anything better to say in riposte.

And yes, there is clear consensus in science because it relates merely to a general agreement between people who know enough about the subject, and that consensus should be the basis of a curriculum. Because we live with the assumption of a shared reality, and that there is a moral basis to actng with the best information one has so as to make deliberations with the clearest conscious choice. No one is as if some master of science, but one can be authoritative precisely because one knows enough about the consensus of an issue and has undertaken research to either expand that consensus, bring it into question, or to validate aspects of it and grant it a greater foundation of trust.

Consensus does not inform unanimity, it informs as to the quality of the collective agreement where disagreement is limited or speculative at best.

A teacher in a classroom doesn't need to be a hypothetical master of [insert subject here] in order to fail a student. They'retestedas to the curriculumand general implementation of their abilities, problem solving, timed efficiency of respondence, and their knowledge basis ... yet somehow, magically, schools seem to work and not be flaming piles of rubble.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

inu-kun:

I have no idea what you are talking about or its connection to the subject material (which is kinda ironic considering the last paragraphs), my guess I annoyed you somewhere.

If we go about "this is against "science"": Science is not free of politics so we shouldn't imagine otherwise to make a case for its absolute authroity. Not to mention that in a lot of cases in politics there is no clear concensus in the science community on a lot of subject (economics) or even ways to quantify facts (ethics).

Frankly, whenever I come across the criticism of someplace being an 'echo chamber', more often than not it's based out of the idea that people either run their mouth and get in trouble for it and refuse to take responsibility for that, because believe it or not people don't have to take your shit in the private sector... or it's about an elabourate conspiracy theory about universities.

So I figure given your post history, just going to cut you off right there. Given this was your reply, I'm guessing you hadn't anything better to say in riposte.

And yes, there is clear consensus in science because it relates merely to a general agreement between people who know enough about the subject, and that consensus should be the basis of a curriculum. No one is as if some master of science, but one can be authoritative precisely because one knows enough about the consensus of an issue and has undertaken research to either expand that consensus, bring it into question, or to validate aspects of it and grant it a greater foundation of trust.

Consensus does not inform unanimity, it informs as to the quality of the collective agreement where disagreement is limited or speculative at best.

A teacher in a classroom doesn't need to be a hypothetical master of [insert subject here] in order to fail a student. They'retestedas to the curriculumand general implementation of their abilities, problem solving, timed efficiency of respondence, and their knowledge basis ... yet somehow, magically, schools seem to work and not be flaming piles of rubble.

Which is besides the point completely unless you want to say that there is no existence of echo chambers anywhere so there's no point to the thread.

Usually I just don't have the time or interest to read extremely long posts that are tangently related to the actual material (and where usually already discussed in the past). I know that's terrible of me.

Depends on the issue but most things in politics are hard to have a concensus on.

Not necessarily, if I gather people in a room and ask them a binary question and afterwards kick out everyone who said "No" I'll have a concensus.

Hmmm, I'm not really talking about university here and I don't even study fields that really involve politics so I'm not really getting your point. The lack of student input is a criticism of an education system, especially in fields like literature.

inu-kun:

Which is besides the point completely unless you want to say that there is no existence of echo chambers anywhere so there's no point to the argument.

Usually I just don't have the time or interest to read extremely long posts that are tangently related to the actual material (and where usually already discussed in the past). I know that's terrible of me.

Depends on the issue but most things in politics are hard to have a concensus on.

Three paragraphs is too long for you?

What were you saying about echo chambers?

inu-kun:
Not specifically this site. Any political channel where there is particularly strong and consistent imbalance between political opinions is likely to degrade into an echo chamber given enough time. Eventually creating a place where the same few opinions are repated ad nauseam and the people not thinking the same will eventually leave or speak less. Only increasing the singular tone.

So is there a way to break it? Or should echo chambers should be abandoned to their sing their echo? Also, since I'm pretty sure it will appear, justifying it as "but my side is always right" is just a childish black and white world view that shows that there is no actual room for debate, ditto for trying to enforce the notion that disagreeing for your side is siding with the worst of the other side's opinions and beliefs.

I gave an inverse example comparing it to other academic disciplines.

I then gave a thoroughly political one of shutting down politicians if they don't answer the questions posed to them.

One of those is directly related to what you were saying, the other is an example of how it's applied elsewhere. Seems pretty fucking cogent to me. And yeah, I ramble... but given that about half my post is directly relevant, you decide to only query one partof what I wrote about? Moreover, they're more important than they fucking seem. Say, the political discourse on environmental problems ... the discourse that scientists are having compared to politicians and the general public.

Turns out consensus is pretty fucking important.

How about you engage with the argument?

Better question, would you care about breaking an echo chamber if it was one you agreed with?

Make sure it's actually an echo chamber worth breaking. I'm pretty sure Holocaust deniers and Moon landing conspiracy theorists consider the general consensus that both of those events happened to be an echo chamber. The problem is, they're full of shit, and they mistake people knowing that they're full of shit for being the oppressed underdog that everyone is trying to keep down. Echo chambers are a thing, but very often it's just someone who doesn't know what they're talking about mistaking being utterly wrong for being the opposed underdog.

Being contrary when you bring nothing of value to the discussion is not a virtue. The point of breaking an echo chamber should not be to replace it with an echo chamber that's more to your liking.

You want to encourage intellectual diversity. That is to say, you need to introduce new ideas and new arguments to people. You need to coach yourself and others in how to apply rigor to your own principles and arguments, as well as that of other people. Regularly seek out information that contradicts your preconceptions so that you can make sure that your ideas are solid. Maintain a good relationship with the people you argue with, so that they know that you aren't their enemy; poke at mistakes where you find them, reach compromise where you can.

Be polite. Be efficient. Have a plan to kill debate everyone you meet.

You want to break Echo Chambers? It's literally as easy as doing three simple things.

1.) Be Polite.

2.) Don't catch Emotions.

3.) Be Open Minded. About their views and your own beliefs.

That's all there is to it. Here's an example. I've had many conversations about Religion. The ones I hated to have came from Bible Thumpers who believed the only truth was on those words, and Atheists who are so willing to insult you and write you off as an intelligent person because of your beliefs. How can those extremes bring about a pleasant conversation, let alone information about the two sides?

The conversations I had that were the best were Faithful people who said "These are my beliefs, they don't have to be yours" and atheists who said "Hey, I don't believe in it, but I'm glad you get something out of it". Let's have those talks all day. Because while it might not change minds (and sometimes they absolutely might), they will just bridge the gap between someone being 'the other' and someone being 'Todd who has a different idea than me' or 'Mary who believes in other things than I do'.

Don't think you can do much about them, at least without some really drastic high level action. Echo chambers aren't necessarily all bad, as there is a point when certain views should fall out of circulation. The problem is echo chambers aren't very discriminating on the type of view that falls out of circulation, so both good and bad views do such.

The best thing I can think of which has its own host of problems is to clamp down on abuse and dog-piling from the point of moderation. This unfortunately relies on a neutral moderator, but unfortunately this is rarely the case in an echo chamber situation as the moderation crew tends to be pulled into the echo as well, and even if they keep rigorously to the forum's rules, they will tend to enforce said rules selectively.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Say, the political discourse on environmental problems ... the discourse that scientists are having compared to politicians and the general public.
Turns out consensus is pretty fucking important.

That's literally the reason I wrote:

Depends on the issue but most things in politics are hard to have a concensus on.

And this is the exception to the rule.

erttheking:

Being contrary when you bring nothing of value to the discussion is not a virtue. The point of breaking an echo chamber should not be to replace it with an echo chamber that's more to your liking.

Who says this is my goal? There are no shortages of hug boxes in the web, wanting to break an echo chamber means I still have hope to actually revert the situation to the past where there was more than flavours of the same opinion.

inu-kun:

erttheking:

Being contrary when you bring nothing of value to the discussion is not a virtue. The point of breaking an echo chamber should not be to replace it with an echo chamber that's more to your liking.

Who says this is my goal? There are no shortages of hug boxes in the web, wanting to break an echo chamber means I still have hope to actually revert the situation to the past where there was more than flavours of the same opinion.

No one. But my point still stands.

I'm not sure at all. Could be quite difficult, depending on the moderators/people governing the place.
You can also expect an echo-chamber (or those wanting such a place) to react quite antagonistically towards any contrary opinion..

Play the devils advocate against both yourself and others.
The latter option needs to be taken in moderation so as to not become increasingly anal in its application.

Point out double-standards, hypocrisy, and highlight fallacies and explain why that is a fallacy.

Finally, it needs to be said that you should start with yourself and resist peer-pressure, mob-rule and "hero-worship".

inu-kun:

That's literally the reason I wrote:

Depends on the issue but most things in politics are hard to have a concensus on.

And this is the exception to the rule.

That's irrelevant to what I wrote.

After all, Trumpanzees calling climate change a Chinese conspiracy theory is a type of echo chamber, precisely because it omits any consensus of the scientific community. Must be a pretty fucking big conspiracy theory to convince such a large segment of people... There is two 'echo chambers', but frankly the moral relevance to follow one over the other is uniquely keyed in favour of the wider scientific community because they best exemplify the utilitarian model of foresight and human agency. About creating the 'truest opinion' one can about where the ethical weight must be to act in specific ways.

And one of these echo chambers didn't actually exist in perpetuity.

The nuclear test ban treaty happened because political leaders worldwide were terrified by what scientists discovered concerning Sr90 infiltrating the food supply and now being found in every person of the planet. Nixon created the EPA and reinforced the Clean Air/Water acts on the back of the scientific community telling him Los Angeles would resemble Beijing now, if it didn't alter its path sufficiently.

Nixon was so frightened by the environmental problems facing a future U.S. that he opined in his writings that he wanted, eventually, the U.S. to lead in a renewable energies market in order to secure the health of future Americans.

So there you had a Republican president actually talking about the necessity of environmental programs, helping create SALT which not only actively limited the production of strategic nuclear weapons but also brought into being the solidification of the Detente that a certain Democrat president almost ended playing silly buggers with Cuba and harassing Soviet sub groups in international waters.

To be fair he tried to limit the purview of the EPA on several occasions, but more or less he was certainly a green thumb atleast in comparison to the presidents that came before him .... and unfortunately for us, still a green thumb in comparison to the presidents that would come after him.

There's a reason why Nixon enjoys support when you take into consideration the wider international community. People in Australia and elsewhere in the Western world (and the Eastern), until Nixon, just assumed both the Soviets and the Americans would be responsible for an inevitable strategic nuclear munitions exchange. And that would inevitably condemn what remained of humanity to suffer for decades to come.

Right up until you had Nixon... in which case we actually saw a blossoming of international co-operation. In essence, also an echo chamber ... because for 2 decades prior thereseemed to be little anti-nuclear movements worldwide could do to burst that bubble and realise what was at stake beyond two myopic superpowers levelling weapons at eachother.

The way Americans write of Nixon as this fantastic diplomat, just an awful domestic leader misses the forest for the trees. It wasn't as if Nixon was some magnificent diplomat, it's that he actually seemingly gave a shit about the wider world for which he belonged in and had thoroughly ditched the idea of nuclear brinksmanship which had plagued former presidential offices.

Which is something pretty fucking novel in an American president at least until his time.

Once again it was the wider scientific community that also held the opinions of international colleagues in high regard to promote and produce some powerful anti-war dossiers and televised discussions on the potential aspects of nuclear war which helped realize the push for peace. The reason why we get things like the Clean Air/Water Acts is because politicians, at least at one time, were listening to scientific consensus of how they should act to mitigate the effects that the future might otherise inflict on a greater humanity to come. And it has provenly helped steer many countries away to evading the suffering that would otherwise be wrought if one had ignored the scientific research.

But for all of those times, it has been scientific consensus that has either helped solidify its backing and realize its push for legislative efforts and international co-operation.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

inu-kun:

That's literally the reason I wrote:

Depends on the issue but most things in politics are hard to have a concensus on.

And this is the exception to the rule.

That's irrelevant to what I wrote.

After all, Trumpanzees calling climate change a Chinese conspiracy theory is a type of echo chamber, precisely because it omits any consensus of the scientific community. Must be a pretty fucking big conspiracy theory to convince such a large segment of people... There is two 'echo chambers', but frankly the moral relevance to follow one over the other is uniquely keyed in favour of the wider scientific community because they best exemplify the utilitarian model of foresight and human agency. About creating the 'truest opinion' one can about where the ethical weight must be to act in specific ways.

And one of these echo chambers didn't actually exist in perpetuity.

The nuclear test ban treaty happened because political leaders worldwide were terrified by what scientists discovered concerning Sr90 infiltrating the food supply and now being found in every person of the planet. Nixon created the EPA and reinforced the Clean Air/Water acts on the back of the scientific community telling him Los Angeles would resemble Beijing now, if it didn't alter its path sufficiently.

Nixon was so frightened by the environmental problems facing a future U.S. that he opined in his writings that he wanted, eventually, the U.S. to lead in a renewable energies market in order to secure the health of future Americans.

So there you had a Republican president actually talking about the necessity of environmental programs, helping create SALT which not only actively limited the production of strategic nuclear weapons but also brought into being the solidification of the Detente that a certain Democrat president almost ended playing silly buggers with Cuba and harassing Soviet sub groups in international waters.

To be fair he tried to limit the purview of the EPA on several occasions, but more or less he was certainly a green thumb atleast in comparison to the presidents that came before him .... and unfortunately for us, still a green thumb in comparison to the presidents that would come after him.

There's a reason why Nixon enjoys support when you take into consideration the wider international community. People in Australia and elsewhere in the Western world (and the Eastern), until Nixon, just assumed both the Soviets and the Americans would be responsible for an inevitable strategic nuclear munitions exchange. And that would inevitably condemn what remained of humanity to suffer for decades to come.

Right up until you had Nixon... in which case we actually saw a blossoming of international co-operation. In essence, also an echo chamber ... because for 2 decades prior thereseemed to be little anti-nuclear movements worldwide could do to burst that bubble and realise what was at stake beyond two myopic superpowers levelling weapons at eachother.

The way Americans write of Nixon as this fantastic diplomat, just an awful domestic leader misses the forest for the trees. It wasn't as if Nixon was some magnificent diplomat, it's that he actually seemingly gave a shit about the wider world for which he belonged in and had thoroughly ditched the idea of nuclear brinksmanship which had plagued former presidential offices.

Which is something pretty fucking novel in an American president at least until his time.

Once again it was the wider scientific community that also held the opinions of international colleagues in high regard to promote and produce some powerful anti-war dossiers and televised discussions on the potential aspects of nuclear war which helped realize the push for peace. The reason why we get things like the Clean Air/Water Acts is because politicians, at least at one time, were listening to scientific consensus of how they should act to mitigate the effects that the future might otherise inflict on a greater humanity to come. And it has provenly helped steer many countries away to evading the suffering that would otherwise be wrought if one had ignored the scientific research.

But for all of those times, it has been scientific consensus that has either helped solidify its backing and realize its push for legislative efforts and international co-operation.

I think the problem with environment in general is just that corporate interests today are far stronger so getting actual change is against the politicians economic interests. As for Climate Change, correct me if I'm wrong, there was some retarded decisions made that painted it as a pure political issue and a wrong one at that, especially the use of a political figure to put forth the topic while delievering wrong information. In a correct world Al Gore's appearance would have been lambasted and every wrong point he said would have been corrected.

inu-kun:
As for Climate Change, correct me if I'm wrong,

You're wrong.

there was some retarded decisions made that painted it as a pure political issue

You mean pure politics apart from all those scientists doing science examining the climate, and all that discussion on developing new and greener technologies, etc. from however many non-political sources?

especially the use of a political figure to put forth the topic

What on earth are you talking about? There's no international authority running the campaign against climate change that decides some sort of official global spokesperson. There are lots of individuals and organisations all of which go about things their own way. Some of them are politicians, and because climate change is at least partly a political issue, there is simply no way politicians can avoid talking about it. Some want to talk about it. Some do it just because it's a requirement of their job.

The point you really want to make is that Al Gore made a movie, and a load of right-wing chuckleheads are essentially employing the illogic of "Climate change is fake because Al Gore thinks it's real", illogic you seem to want to congratulate for some reason.

while delievering wrong information. In a correct world Al Gore's appearance would have been lambasted and every wrong point he said would have been corrected.

Are you seriously taking this line? We have had 30 years of virtually non-stop bullshit from the climate change deniers, and you're complaining because one film by Al Gore had a few mistakes?

"Hey, it doesn't matter how much those lot lie, distort and bullshit, YOU'RE discredited if there's so much as a typo".

undeadsuitor:
Better question, would you care about breaking an echo chamber if it was one you agreed with?

Yes

Agema:
Snip

Shhh. Don't you know that conservatives hold science-denying, bigoted, and hateful views because liberals forced them into it? I mean the group that harps about personal responsibility is definitely not at fault for their personal beliefs.

At least this is what I've heard from a number of conservative posters on this forum....

inu-kun:

I think the problem with environment in general is just that corporate interests today are far stronger so getting actual change is against the politicians economic interests.

And? That's why we have governments to regulate law and adjudicate in terms of extent of one's ability to utilize resources at what future costs to the people. In the same way we regulate the medical industry to not merely sell drugs, but have to stand against intensive drug testing.

As for Climate Change, correct me if I'm wrong, there was some retarded decisions made that painted it as a pure political issue and a wrong one at that,

Lolwut?

.... especially the use of a political figure to put forth the topic while delievering wrong information. In a correct world Al Gore's appearance would have been lambasted and every wrong point he said would have been corrected.

And ...? So hold on a tick, climate change is wrong because Al Gore somehow?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

.... especially the use of a political figure to put forth the topic while delievering wrong information. In a correct world Al Gore's appearance would have been lambasted and every wrong point he said would have been corrected.

And ...? So hold on a tick, climate change is wrong because Al Gore somehow?

In a rather sad way, this quote from Inu actually makes sense. The modern right-wing in the US has no platform except for "anti-left.[1]" As soon as any liberal said "maybe we should do something about the human race fucking up the entire world" due to scientific consensus that it's true, conservatives had to take the opposite view. The fact that they advocate other science-denying ideas makes it easy to slip right into their beliefs.

[1] See RomneyCare aka the ACA aka Obamacare aka socialism/communism/death panels/end of the free world

Agema:

inu-kun:
As for Climate Change, correct me if I'm wrong,

You're wrong.

there was some retarded decisions made that painted it as a pure political issue

You mean pure politics apart from all those scientists doing science examining the climate, and all that discussion on developing new and greener technologies, etc. from however many non-political sources?

especially the use of a political figure to put forth the topic

What on earth are you talking about? There's no international authority running the campaign against climate change that decides some sort of official global spokesperson. There are lots of individuals and organisations all of which go about things their own way. Some of them are politicians, and because climate change is at least partly a political issue, there is simply no way politicians can avoid talking about it. Some want to talk about it. Some do it just because it's a requirement of their job.

The point you really want to make is that Al Gore made a movie, and a load of right-wing chuckleheads are essentially employing the illogic of "Climate change is fake because Al Gore thinks it's real", illogic you seem to want to congratulate for some reason.

while delievering wrong information. In a correct world Al Gore's appearance would have been lambasted and every wrong point he said would have been corrected.

Are you seriously taking this line? We have had 30 years of virtually non-stop bullshit from the climate change deniers, and you're complaining because one film by Al Gore had a few mistakes?

"Hey, it doesn't matter how much those lot lie, distort and bullshit, YOU'RE discredited if there's so much as a typo".

If you don't want a subject to be looked as a political issue, don't get a single side political figure to preach about it.

Avnger:

In a rather sad way, this quote from Inu actually makes sense. The modern right-wing in the US has no platform except for "anti-left.[1]" As soon as any liberal said "maybe we should do something about the human race fucking up the entire world" due to scientific consensus that it's true, conservatives had to take the opposite view. The fact that they advocate other science-denying ideas makes it easy to slip right into their beliefs.

That's dumb, and everyone who followed through with this line of thinking should know they're dumb. But I'm pretty sure that only goes on to reinforce the point I made prior Inu-kun's reply, that one of these echo chambers didn't exist as if in perpetuity.

Politicians worldwide were terrified at the incredible abundance of Strontium-90 in effectively every multi-cellular creature on the planet and how this amount would accumulate in humans well into the foreseeable future even if we stopped testing immediately. And lo and behold politicians worldwide, ideological opponents for which prior this revelation couldn't be seen to see eye-to-eye, agreed that there had to be an end to unregulated nuclear tests and the whole scientific world, regardless of political ideology, agreed.

I suppose you can make the argument that agreeing not to set off nukes as simply a show of force isn't exactly hard. Especially given their construction was already guaranteed to produce fruitful weapons of war and test explosions at ground and airburst nuclear munitions were already well enough documented that you could accurately project megadeath and the most viable weapon types to deliver.

Regardless, climate change should just be one of those things which should terrify politicians inspite of their ideological bent.

[1] See RomneyCare aka the ACA aka Obamacare aka socialism/communism/death panels/end of the free world

Well the first step is always to look to your own group. Echo chambers are one of those things which are dangerous precisely because you don't recognize that you're in one. Heck, many of the symptoms are false perceptions. Common symptoms include an illusion of invulnerability (the group thinks it is invincible and can do no wrong), unquestioned belief in the moral correctness of the group, a shared illusion of unamity, self-censorship to conform, shared stereotypes of the out-group (often as too evil, too ignorant, or too stupid to be worth bothering with), collective efforts to rationalize or discount warnings, direct pressure to conform, and protecting the group from contrary viewpoints by self-appointed 'mind-guards' (also known as gatekeeping). You can probably see how it can be hard to recognize echo chambers/groupthink when you've fallen victim to it, so the best defense is to be aware of that and keep on your toes.

Generally speaking the best counters to this are persistent critical evaluation, encouraging 'Devil's Advocate' positions to question underlying assumptions, encouraging open discussions, and simply not being afraid of dissent.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here