When it comes to US politics, why do the majority of people like to stay in their echo chambers? (serious)
When it comes to US politics, why do the majority of people like to stay in their echo chambers? (serious)
not american.
but echo chambers are cool in a way that goes beyond politics. it provides perceptible feelings of unity, belongingness, and validity to those that seek them. apes together strong kind of deal.
and since politics is about social issues, I don't see why not.
Going to build on this to highlight something:
-
Given the hyper-stigmatized, hyper-partisan approach to... well, a lot of things these days, not just US politics, engaging with those you politically disagree with is likely to not just produce calm disagreements but sharp, even vicious statements that your entire worldview/lifestyle/culture/ethnicity/whatever is literally the stuff of pure evil, and you are an absolutely terrible person for adhering to it. No nuance, no consideration, no empathy.
-
On a different tack, consider that strong rejection/disagreement is shown to activate the same centers in your brain which are associated with sharp physical pain. To your brain, being slapped in the face conversationally and slapped in the face physically produce extremely similar results.
With these two points in mind, consider: Why would people choose to expose themselves to environments which promote something their brain interprets as actual, physical harm?
Unfortunately, the current palette of social media options don't really offer spaces for nuanced, thoughtful discussion which doesn't begin with people screaming their hostility to what they disagree with. It's a big of a chicken-and-egg question whether that's a cause or an effect, but the net result is creation of an environment which our pain-avoiding brains guide our choices away from people we disagree with.
Why would people choose to expose themselves to environments which promote something their brain interprets as actual, physical harm?
People commonly have a framework where they think of the slap as having kind of, occurred beforehand, right, and then they see themselves as slapping back whenever they respond, which is another part of why political discourse is so polarized and bad faith basically at all times.
-
One whole “echo chamber” was built on stigmatizing the mainstream news which by definition means they’re pushing alternative news.
The only news I’m interested in are the facts. I avoid opinion articles or “framing” as much as I can.
If we’re calling factual reporting an echo chamber then fine. I guess the answer to your question for me is I like my echo chamber because the truth matters.
The “echo chamber” narrative only serves to legitimize and “both sides” bullshit.
Because the opposite echo chamber is filled with lying liars who lie? ;)
You can't take someone from an echo chamber, present them with facts, and change their mind. In fact, the opposite is true. They double down on what they think they already know.
It feels like politics in America is a game of team sports. Red vs Blue. No compromising, you either win or lose.
Pretty much, except that the Democrats ALWAYS compromise, resulting in a slow creep to the right over the last 50 years.
I’ll tell you why I’m pretty liberal with my block button and cool with my echo chamber. There are people out there who want me dead for liking my same sex. My trans friends are being legislated against / threatened with violence not because of science or health, but because of feelings and religion. I have family that emigrated legally being exposed to horrific racism and the threat of violence.
Do you support human rights? Or do you support death to the “other” ? Makes my choices easy. Not to mention I prefer actual truth to my information sources, not tabloid fluff designed to keep me enraged.
Human nature; people do not want to admit when they're wrong, so they seek media that does not challenge their beliefs.
While there's truth in that, I also feel like the way OP phrased it is needlessly, simplistically cynical. For one thing, just because you're in general agreement with a group doesn't necessarily make it an "echo chamber." There can also be groups that do a pretty good job collectively shining critical analysis on the news of the day in order to sort it out properly. That's a real thing, and we can see it happening all around us.
Not just that, but never before has there been this level of disinformation injected in to Western society, primarily by Russia & China. They've become master internet bullshitters, and we're now on the brink of democracy failing because of how many people buy in to their complete nonsense. Now to me-- that's an echo chamber.
Not so much the ones who take the time to have real discussions about what the news of the day means. That part is much harder work IMO, it involves lots more uncertainty and even soul-searching, and overall I think Lemmy and the other place do commendable work, there. Bottom line, it feels pretty insulting to hand-wave away large groups like that as mere "echo chambers," as if they came anywhere close to what's happening in other places.
Not just that, but never before has there been this level of disinformation injected in to Western society, primarily by Russia & China. They’ve become master internet bullshitters, and we’re now on the brink of democracy failing because of how many people buy in to their complete nonsense. Now to me-- that’s an echo chamber.
While it's good to see someone else actually acknowledging this as being something that's actually happening, I wouldn't call that an echo chamber as so much as it's a propaganda agenda attack.
So much conflict online right now may not be truly between different members in the same society, but instead conflict that's whipped up by agitators from outside of the society.
We should all pay more attention to that meta, and act accordingly.
The concept of the echo chamber was invented by social media companies to gaslight people about how social media algorithms force antagonizing interactions between people who would avoid each other in real life because arguments mean participation means more ad revenue.
In real life constantly trying to hunt down people you disagree with to "expose yourself to the whole debate" isn't seen as virtuous, it's seen as grounds for a restraining order, and depending on how intense you were about it, an involuntary psych hold.
It's not an echo chamber, it's the fact that how humans naturally build their own social environment outside of social media runs directly opposed to how social media companies maximize their revenue off you.
force antagonizing interactions between people who would avoid each other in real life because arguments mean participation means more ad revenue.
It's not even that they necessarily would avoid each other in real life, I find. It's that the channels through which these confrontations take place are totally constructed to promote bad faith snap judgements. It's why short form content is becoming more popular online, I think. Human expression is sort of pushed through a pasta strainer until it becomes the homogenous goop fuel that both spurns the parasocial gears and powers the skinner's box roulette wheel at the core of all these services.
One thing that keeps me in my echo chamber is people not coming to debate in good faith. I’m generally all for listening to me ideas and viewpoints, but I find that so many people I talk to just want to convince me I’m wrong.
Before the 2016 election when thedonald was in full swing on Reddit, I thought it would be good to get both sides and entertained it for a while. What I got were the most vitriolic, ignorant, and disingenuous headlines and comments clogging my feed. So ya, I blocked it. If a huge part of a platform is pushing horseshit I don't feel the least bit bad about blocking it.
I think echo chambers is what the current form of the internet has provided us with. Especially the recommendation algorithms that make it so convenient. And it's a downwards-spiral in itself.
Also politics in the USA seems to have that baked in. Two parties, strong opinions about everything and you need to take sides. Everything needs to be simple truths and about people, less about complicated topics and diversified perspectives. You're either supporting something or the enemy.
Also in the present time some people struggle with the choices available to them. Some want guidance, simple truths and something to identify themselves with. It's a part of being human to look for a way to define your own identity. And to want a group to belong to.
So we end up in a situation where everything is pushing towards it. People longing for recognition and validation, tribalism being part of our psychology. Companies pushing for it with their platforms and algorithms. And politicians recognizing and exploiting it to their advantage.
And I rarely see politicians talk about tackling actual issues... Saying it'll take some effort but we need to address xyz, it's the way forward. They rather make it emotional, make a show out of it. Other things would be widely unpopular in the US.
The internet only allows people to form more niche echo chambers. It does as much or more to challenge them though. All of us grew up in echo chambers of one or another. They predate the internet by millennia.
Politics has also been a 2 party thing for Americas entire history. The names change but it's always two. Modern magats are no different than the rural rubes taken advantage of by wealthy southerners in the civil war.
The reason wealthy powerful politicians don't address base problems. Is because that's often them. We replaced one wealthy ruling elite for a slightly less narrow group of wealthy powerful elite. Thinking it would resolve all our problems in the long term. But the problem was never the number of wealthy ruling elites. The problem was the wealthy ruling Elite.
Disagree. YouTube recommends me a lot of videos about science, Linux, nerd stuff, certain kinds of politics... It's an entirely different feed for my wife with her interests matched. Also my 65 yo relatives read completely different news articles than the ones I read. Same with Instagram, TokTok and Telegram groups they're a member of. It's not a slightly more niche thing, it's a completely different perspective on the world and what's important.
10 years ago we all used to watch the same 8 'o clock news... It has completely changed.
And it's on an entire different level than 15 years ago when the choice was like 5 different newspapers with a slightly different political focus. You're right that echo chambers, tribalism and groups have always existed. But the internet did quite something and brought it to a whole next level. Mass media is close to dead and it's the recommendation algorithm of the tech companies who shape the perspectives of most of the people. Tailored to their filter bubble.
And with the 2 party system and the politicians not addressing the problems... I agree. I think that's one of the major problems. And the USA has pioneered being an echo chamber for the "western world". I'd agree that it happened way earlier and is more pronounced than in other parts of the world. And these aren't healthy or sustainable dynamics.
I've always been fascinated by the idea that Americans define themselves by their politics. Where I'm from people will usually say, "I voted for X" but in the US it seems people say, "I am a republican/democrat".
Also the concept of registering as a democrat/republican. Is that just for being able to vote for your preferred party's nominee in the pre-selection phase? It seems like it would go a long way towards mentally committing you to how you vote in the actual election.
I think people expressing opinions to othet that they don't agree with makes people uncomfortable. People tend to avoid feeling uncomfortable. Also some people get angry when they get uncomfortable.
Its hard to have an meaningful conversation with someone who is angry.
Because self-reflection is hard and most people have been taught that it's equivalent to "hating yourself, your country, etc..." Taking an honest look at your own faults is inordinately hard for most people, so they would rather double down on their own wrongness, regardless of evidence.
People prefer less social strife in general. They may think they like "owning" some opponent, but what they really want is a bunch of people that agree with them so they can feel safe and calm. That's what it comes down to, that feeling of safety.
Engaging in conflict is only fun when the base you're standing on, and returning to, is solid and supportive.
That is completely faction agnostic, it applies outside of politics as well.
Since the world as it is often is controlled by people leveraging fear and doubt to wield control, it pushes people into feeling besieged which makes them seek "safety" in numbers by connecting with those they think of as allies more than they might if not exposed to the manipulation used by political (or other) blocs and the people that control those blocs.
Splintered media environment means we don't actually have a shared set of facts to discuss with people from the other side anymore. We can't have normal conversations when we can't agree on the basic facts on the ground.
For a rather unsettling take, you may be interested in the concept of the digital panopticon. Because of the degree of surveillance that is possible in what media we consume, it's also possible that we are intentionally being kept in these echo chambers.
Not American; is this something that you come across offline too? Since I mostly see this online, and the behavior that you described are rewarded more since social media companies get more money from it.
America is pretty wildly segregated in several ways
Not really, seems like people are much more reasonable IRL than compared to the loud crazy crap you see online.
I was raised in the other echo chamber and I talk to my parents pretty regularly. 🤷
I don't particularly share interests, or spaces do that matter, with people on the opposite end of the political spectrum
It's exhausting to have to teach people who don't want to listen.
I cannot speak for other people, but I like being right more than I like thinking I'm right. If you have any enlightenment I don't, gimme.
I think it's worth questioning the premise of this question - do the majority of people stay in their echo chambers?
It might seem like that online, but is there any evidence that it's true more generally?
I don't seek out people i agree with. Where i live and what i do tend to put me in contact with people similar to me ... Lemmy, Dallas, public schools, artsy stuff, ... I watch a bit of fox news when I'm home alone to see what they're spreading, but i always flip to two other channels before i walk away in case someone hits the LAST button on the remote.
Ha! :-)
Because it makes them feel that even though they can't be successful or safe, they can be right.
I'm talking about both Republicans and Dems.
Who wants to be stuck talking to a bunch of obnoxious evil clowns?
Because every space is an echo chamber to some extent. Mod = God gets abused way too often, so why talk somewhere you risk getting banned from if you can avoid it by staying in spaces that already support your views?
Lack of curiosity. It's exhausting to deal with political realities like 24/7 and perceive the world in a constant hyper politicized lens, without also becoming a schizo crazy person. The easiest way to prevent all this,but still be able to rationalize and make sense of the world in front of you, is to be able to slot yourself into a nice clean prepackaged category, where your information can be run through the filters for you, and you don't have to really rationalize new stuff or critically think.
This even extends to spaces outside the echo chamber if you do it long enough, because your language changes so much that your opposition is basically incapable of actually communicating with you. It's pretty easily witnessed in conservative echo chambers, where they'll say that, this or that is woke, this or that is communism, but the same also applies in reverse where people assume academic definitions to be "true", which is basically nonsensical as far as linguistics goes.
So, basically, it's easy, so it's default, and it's totally inescapable, both existentially and just in terms of the raw media landscape being totally comprised of polarizing hackery.
Mirror Neurons
I'd love to see literally any data that this "echo chamber" thing is real. A lot of people on lemmy in particular love to talk about it but in a vacuum, without any reference to what they mean by it.
A while ago on lemmy I stated a political position and someone told me "If you ever talk to anybody outside of your echo chamber you're in for a dangerous time", and I was like, okay, I'm talking to you, right now. Hit me with this dangerous knowledge. No reply. The whole time they talked to me the only thing they had to say was about echo chambers and no actual, substantial reply to anything I was saying.
So if anyone wants to explain what they actually mean by this concept with details and evidence I would love to hear it.
I'm doing it. I'm stepping out of my echo chamber and ready to hear the unvarnished truth from you brave iconoclasts. Oh god this is scary.