Everybody knows where the other echo chamber is. As a democrat, you are free to watch Fox or read Breitbart. The hard thing is to read it open minded. The average democrat HN visitor probably looks there and stops after two sentences. Then leaves ranting about the bullshit there.
The crux is that this the same in reverse. If a Trump supporter watches CNN, he stops after two sentences. Then leaves ranting about the bullshit there.
I have no idea how to fix this.
Brilliant. Thank you for that excellent summation, and no, I'm not being the least bit sarcastic. That's awesome.
> I have no idea how to fix this.
Neither do I, really, but let's not jump to the solution before we're done with the diagnosis. Here's an idea: critical thinking is overtaught. Yes, over. I know the common belief is that there's not enough critical thinking out there. I've said it myself many times, but it's a bit of a "little knowledge is dangerous" kind of thing. I see a lot of people, especially in tech, who know just enough critical thinking to pick apart someone else's argument, find its logical flaws, name its fallacies, then dismiss the whole thing. What they never did - what they've never been taught to do - is listen. Yes, it's a skill, and thus learnable. Very little of what people say is completely right or completely wrong. None of it comes without context. Take the OP, for example. There's sure a lot of Bernie butthurt there, but it's there for a reason and there are other nuggets of truth to be gleaned from it as well. Even the most deplorable Trump supporter has something to teach us, though perhaps unintentionally. Critical thinking is awesome, but sometimes we need to put off the critique of falsehood until we've looked for some truth.
I think this is the responsibility of "the media". They should be the ones looking at the "truth" from all sides and presenting a equidistant picture.
It's just that we don't have "media" anymore, they're all just tools for delivering advertising.
Media has moved to the Internet - "social media" which doesn't yet have a clearly defined role/goal in society.
It has an impact allright, but not necessarily intended, it just kind of happened by itself.
Now the responsibility is on these Internet companies to implement the proper information dissemination algorithms, otherwise we might end up with civil wars all over the world.
For example, if you follow a "democrat" leader, Facebook should force you to follow a "republican" leader too.
In general, whenever there's something divisive, these tools should "push" opposing views to you as well, in order to avoid the formation of "echo chambers".
"And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I'm going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope. I meet a lot of people. And, see some great looking babes. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And, and ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don't know. The moral of the story is, is we're here on Earth to fart around. And, of course, the computers will do us out of that. And, what the computer people don't realize, or they don't care, is we're dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And, we're not supposed to dance at all anymore."
- Kurt Vonnegut
I don't either, but I'd love to get some brainstorming started.
Some naive solutions (and, please, feel free to point out why each of them won't work -- any maybe what you'd change to get closer to a solution!):
1. News "aggregator" sites that pull from both sides of the spectrum -- though people would probably just pick and choose which articles they read and which they raged over (assuming they didn't just revert back to CNN/Fox immediately)
2. Some neutralizing layer on top of all news sites that pulls out glittering generalities, biased phrasing, etc -- though you'd still have the issue of which stories are being reported on, and those "neutered" articles could easily be less interesting to read (and of course this would be difficult to get right, but I don't think difficulty to implement should be a barrier to trying something)
3. Some gamification of understanding and debate, that rewards people for taking the time to read posts from the other side and thoughtfully sharing their opinions on why they agree/disagree, or pairs people up with someone in private to have a discussion over it (just saw something on HN the other day for this), or something else to facilitate seeing things from someone else's POV
4. A more traditional game (as in, actually a game) that mirrors the real world (in the same way the Stock Market Game mirrors stock market prices) in which you play as someone with a different point of view (e.g. you're given a fictional character and role-play as them) and try to make compromises with other players to achieve peace in an evolving fictional world
One other question is this: how do we get people to want to escape their echo chambers? Many people enjoy or are just fine being surrounded by people that agree with them. Lots of people actually go out of their way to remove those who disagree with them (as is popular on e.g. Facebook and G+ right now). How do we convince people that, yes, sometimes it's good to hear dissenting ideas?
I see so many people upset right now, and it's clear there's a myriad of deep-set problems at work that can't be fixed with a simple bandaid solution. It's frustrating when you see a problem like this and have no idea how to fix it.
The million-dollar questions are: How do you combat the addictive effects of anger (it is a very addictive emotion), and the human predisposition towards tribal conflict (e.g., the us vs them dynamic)?
If we had a good answer to those questions, then we could craft a media environment that, while still biased, presented a good sampling of viewpoints[1].
After which, we would need to figure out how can that be made economically sustainable?
I would be very interested to tackle those problems, but fear the economics.
[1] Right now, most media outlets present "the other side" solely as a strawman/weakman argument to be knocked down.
For this election the prediction markets were just as wrong as the polls and pundits. (Thanks to everybody who bet against Trump, you gave me great odds ;)
The technology is just a tool. Tools that we choose how and when to use.
If an echo chamber exists, it's only because we, as individuals, create it. We like and comments on posts on Facebook that agree with our existing opinions and we unfollow the people who have different opinions. Our own actions create the echo chamber.
We also get our news from one or two sources, and we avoid the sources that lean the other way. Not all media has a liberal bias - there are many media outlets with conservative views, we just choose not to read them.
The tools aren't to blame - we are. The result we see and the America we live in are direct consequences of our actions. To rid ourselves of the echo chamber, we have to change our own actions. We have to specifically search out information that challenges our beliefs. We have to interact with people who have different values.
I do not listen/watch/read Breitbart, Alex Jones, Fox News, Drudge. I don't consider Fox to be a "conservative news outlet" either; I put them in the establishment propaganda bucket.
The way to fix it is to force anyone that broadcasts a video signal over cable or the airwaves or the internet to have a few hours a night of commercial free news. If they publish something that's patently not true then the government should revoke their license to broadcast on every medium. The only problem with that is that it would be very easy to get state run media in that situation.
Their tech news are also really good - you end up reading lots of stories that will be on the front page of HN throughout the day.
If you can not understand somebody, if you can not speak and understand their language, if you can not use words they way they do, then you have no chance of communicating with them.
It's super easy to be open minded about it once you realize it's all bullshit everywhere.
I have even seen tweets claiming all Trump's voters (60 million people) are sexist, racist etc. It could just be a simple fact that people value other things more than just sexism and racism.
Trump just sold people a better future to this voters than Hillary did. Whether he is going to solve any issues of his voters, is a different thing.
I know about the emails and the investigation, that's nothing new. Please don't write articles about how everybody forgot about wikileaks and how much leaked emails you were posting in social media, because i don't care. These are not facts, they don't help me understand how trump won.
Also it was a very, very close race. Especially in Florida, i was glued to the screen.
EDIT: i read the whole article. Its clickbait. It never even starts trying to explain how hillary lost. It just states things not supported by facts like "Bernie Sanders Would Have Beat Trump". I would like to see Bernie beating Trump, but it is 100% opinion. No facts supported this claim. A third of the article is a positive outlook for the trump-presidency, which has nothing to do with the headline and what i expected to read. Also the first third is all about the leaked wikileaks emails, but no facts are presented that support the conclusion that they were even that important. I doubt it, of course it's a scandal, but the candidates were too different to let the emails be the decisive factor.
I want to understand how hillary lost, but i want facts, polls, interviews, data and experts analysing the data. Not somebody rambling about how he knew it all along.
Voters like this African American gal I met in eastern Michigan who did not vote after Bernie lost, or that of this great group of young Asian Americans who also supported Bernie but switched or did not vote after his loss due to extended family & friends (from the west coast nonetheless) telling them Trump was the only option.
This is crazy. Neither Hillary nor Trump even received as many votes as John McCain did back in 2008 (60M) [1], who still lost to Obama by another 10 million votes. It's crazy to actually see how many fewer people voted this election compared to the past two, for whatever reasons.
[1] https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/npA9xOL8_g_akHquHjzBBFn1RS...
His tireless opposition to torture is something I wish Obama had, and I truly can respect a person who can stand up and say essentially "I was tortured in Vietnam, how DARE we do this to others. We are not them!"
B) Seriously heard and had emails saying that there would be Trump supporters watching our polls (I live int he third largest city in PA)
C) Very little enthusiasm for Hillary compared to the Super Star Status of Trump.
D) People don't understand that the Democrats had little national power besides the White House and didn't take the election seriously
E) Facts and truth was thrown out the door so there was little to no dialog between the parties. The demonizing of Democrats was unreal. People really believe Hillary is a Satan Worshiper and that Obama is secretly helping ISIS.
I find it a bit ironic that there are protests against Trump in the cities as for years, the cities in PA have determined how the state voted. In an election where the rural constituent was finally mobilized, it's like they're throwing tantrums because they didn't get their way.
As a US citizen, I have to trust the system and believe that, while I didn't vote for Trump, he's exactly what the people want. I don't like his rhetoric but I do understand the anger of the "common man", who's watched policy driven by the self-appointed elites drives them from the middle class.
Until now they haven't stood a chance - corporate money buys policy and ensures increasing corporate profits while making the former middle class poorer. I won't say that there's not a race war going on, but I believe that part of the problem is that there's an underlying class war simmering out-of-sight.
I worked the polls for 5 hours. I asked everyone going in to the gym to play basketball if they voted. I got two responses from the players. A) "Of course I voted" B) F* that B
The majority of the white voters were for Trump and would vocalize there displeasure with Hillary.
Isn't a lot of the print outlets' revenue generated through advertising, though?
Sanders said "Take power from the 1%". Trump said "Make America great again". Hillary said "America is already great".
Which of those statements will resonate with the people who have been struggling for years and can't see much hope for their children? Which of those statements gives the impression that the candidate doesn't understand that so many people are actually struggling?
“Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer."
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sander...
Also you cannot dismiss EVERYTHING as being lies. It's just not how lying works. A lie is a slightly modified truth, not a complete fiction. It's also pretty much the same as the hysteria that is being written about, to claim that everything is a lie.
The real story of why he won is a lot less exciting than everyone makes it out to be. He basically said he'll fix everything that's wrong, somehow. Especially whatever is wrong about the job market at the lower end. Economics seems to have gotten buried amid all the name-calling during the campaign, but not in the ballot box. And economics has been the major topic in every election, and every election an establishment candidate has been elected and turned out not to fix the issues.
Hillary wanted to talk about all sorts of things that aren't economics: racial equality, gender issues, foreign policy, experience in government, Trump being himself, and so on. Well, she got Trumped because people didn't care that his style is a bit narcissistic, didn't care that he has zero experience, and didn't care that he has no actual plan. People took a punt on Trump because why buy more of the same thing that doesn't work?
On Bernie, I agree with the article. He talked about a real economic alternative, and would have had a chance.
To be clear: I don't give a flying f* about what you do with your body, but don't fire me if I happen to use a personal pronoun that doesn't match your feeling.
You had no problem in disregarding my opinion, and felt the need to protect their views.
Please take the time to view this video
And don't you dare cut me off of my right to free speech because you don't agree with me.
I won't be offended if you ignore me.
That aside, broadly, Hillary lost because she:
- Represented the establishment
- Was uninspiring
- Was followed by the aura of 'scandal' (Benghazi and the email server are the two I've heard the most)
I think people were simply tired of establishment politicians who they felt never listened to them and never worked for their interests anyways - and just wanted someone radically different. It also helped that Trump's message "Make America Great Again" is trivially inspiring and broadly resonates. People feel that there's something wrong - that the social contract is gone, and they want to be part of a future where that greatness and their part in it exists again.
But when people are worried about leading a respectful life and make the future of their children safer, you cannot expect them to vote on sexism and racism as major topics in an election. You need to sell them a future.
And Trump sold them a future with "Make America Great Again". And Bernie was also selling people a future where corporations don't decide ur life. Hillary was basically telling America is great already. Think of people who are anxious economically hearing that.
I think the point is, that most people have a rather extreme picture of being a sexist or racist.
No you don't have to run around and rape women to be a sexist
No you don't have to shave your head and batter blacks to be a racist.
It is enough if you simply accept people being that way.
And if you voted for Trump you didn't just accept that he is sexist or racist, you even approved for it by giving him something despite him acting like that.
The simple fact is, now people think it's okay to propagate hate if you get enough out of it.
Doubling-down on the racist accusation was why Trump proceeded to win the President.
Now, you're going to triple-down on it?
LOL. Some people never learn.
Really I found what he sold was doom and gloom. Death of America if he wasn't elected.
Seriously asking because I guess I am blind but what future is he selling besides we all would cease to exist as a country and a democracy if he lost?
See "actions to protect the American worker", essentially, isolationism. Anti NAFTA, anti TPP, anti China dumping, anti UN regulations (ie. anti climate change, or at least anti economic impact from climate change).
In the last section there's something about working to punish people employing illegal immigrants, which is a very sore point with poor Americans.
These are not going to be very popular actions on Hacker News, but is it that hard to see that there's a TON of poor Americans this would resonate with ?
That's ultimately why he won.
He got some bonus votes from racists and other kooks, and he wrapped his core message in the typical right-wing xenophobia that resonates well with the base of the modern GOP.
>I have even seen tweets claiming all Trump's voters (60 million people) are sexist, racist etc. It could just be a simple fact that people value other things more than just sexism and racism.
I see a campaign that ran on hate and anger for the 'other'. A campaign that white nationalists have called a blessing. A candidate endorsed by the KKK. A candidate that tweeted out a picture of Hillary Clinton with a Star of David affixed to her.
Trump relied upon a lot of economic anxiety as well but much of that was codified in racial terms: that Obama was serving the interests of black folks more, that white people were being marginalized in the culture, that brown rapists are coming for their jobs and their daughters. How can a vote for Trump not be seen as sexist, racist, and xenophobic? I'm sick of this shit saying we need to understand the other side and find out why they are so angry. I think it's pretty clear why Trump supporters are so angry. I've been to Trump rallies, I've talked to supporters, and you know what most of it comes down to? They want 'their' America back. They say they want to end corruption and take down the political establishment, but they voted for a candidate who is stacking the whitehouse with slimeball careerists like Pence, Gingrich, and Christie. But that seems to be okay with them, because it's 'their' side i.e. white revanchists.
In a country with such charged racial history as the US, is it really unbelievable that millions have regressive views regarding race? Look at how awful Obama is treated by some of these people - that he's a muslim, he secretly hates America and funds ISIS. And even if the voters themselves aren't racist, they are complicit in voting for a man who undoubtedly is. Where does that leave them?
What should be done is take steps for an inclusive growth including people who are anxious, dis-enchanted with establishment. But by labelling them, you are basically discriminating them and pushing them further away.
The fact is there was always a margin for error and probabilities involved here. Clinton having an 89% chance of winning did not predict a victory. Also, we obviously don't have a model for how many democrats are going to sit on their asses and not vote in any given election.
Looking back, the thing that signaled something weird was going on was the fact that Trump could say literally any offensive dumb-ass idea, roil the media and all his opponents, and come out unscathed or even stronger. He did this a dozen times or more throughout the campaign. I suspect that really understanding that dynamic will explain how Trump won.
>...the fact that Trump could say literally any offensive dumb-ass idea...
Okay. You're gonna have to be more specific than that. Which idea did you thought was dumb?
Just another sore loser who's own echo chambre prevents him from realising most democrats voted for clinton, and no preference the DNC staffers had changed that.
Note that Allentown is relatively safe from State College ever passing it as the Borough itself is small and mostly developed. There are 5 surrounding townships that actually contain most of the area's population.
Also we became the number one energy producing nation, under Obama, in the world he is acting like we have been holding off of trillions of revenue.
I hope I wrong but none of that is a future this is fixing yesterdays problems.
I actually went so far as to do a little search into how others defined critical thinking, and they uniformly included being informed and fact-based. It seems unlikely to me that one can participate informedly in a debate without having really listened to the other participants.
Given how prevalent and easily accessible that view of critical thinking is, I am curious as to what informed your apparent view that this is not part of critical thinking.
I am doing no such thing. There was nothing in what I said to suggest that it was directed at you specifically. This would be a very bad time to construct a strawman.
> hey uniformly included being informed and fact-based
"Informed and fact-based" is not the same as listening to one's opponent. I wasn't talking about what tools can be used to rebut another's argument; I was - pretty clearly - talking about listening to it before the rebuttal starts. You've pretty much just proven my point.
Your response to my position misses my point. You questioned where I got the idea that critical thinking encompasses listening, and what you wrote or thought you were saying up to that point is immaterial to that question. You distinguish between an initial time of listening and a subsequent time of rebuttal, but listening itself involves thinking, whereby one understands and evaluates the information, and it is from that that any rebuttal begins.
BTW I agree with much of what you have written recently about the election, especially your point that Bernie also lost, and with regard to the idea that markets are the solution to everything.
The people who voted for Trump voted for him despite the obvious and endlessly apparent evidence that he is sexist, racist, and generally an awful person. What can be said about that? Again, if these voters are so disenchanted with the establishment, why did they reelect so many incumbent senators and representatives? Why did they vote for a guy who is stacking his WH with careerists?
To be honest, I think this whole 'disenchanted with the establishment' narrative is missing the focus on the establishment it seems they really hate - the establishment of the first black president.
From whether it's saying things like "Oh Tim is so well spoken, not like his other black friends" or viewing any black male as a potential criminal, Americans, as a whole, are incredibly racist even if they don't "mean" to be. Trump's election is proof of that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/opinion/coates-the-good-ra...
Same goes for the Rep's they could have run anyone (well maybe not cruz) other than Trump and had an easy win against Hillary.
Anecdotally i know many people that voted for Trump and not one of them was happy about doing it.
This election the majority of voters on both sides voted against the other candidate verse for their candidate.
But they still did it. They still voted for an outspoken racist and sexist. They voted for a man who wants to register every Muslim in a database. What does that say about them?
No. That's YOUR definition of the common man. Their definition of the common man is themselves, a person who have lost his job, because all the companies in his town have sent all the jobs oversea.
This election has nothing to do with racism. For many Trump supporters, having a job so you can feed your family is the most important issue. You're attributing too much to the racism stuff. Just because racism is an important issue for you doesn't mean Trump supporters cares about it.
They just wants their jobs back.
If you vote for someone how is racist and sexist, then you are part of the problems that racism and sexism are. Sure you vote for diffrent reasons, but you effectivly say "It's okay to be a racist as long as you help me to feed my kids"
If you vote for someone that only serves her own interests and uses disenfranchised minorities as a stepping stone for personal power and flaunts rules that the rest of us would be put on trial for breaking, then you are part of the problem that corruption, bribery, and dishonesty are. Sure, you vote for different reasons but you effectively say "It's okay to step on everyone in your path, lie, and cheat, as long as I get what I want."
It doesn't sound like a fair argument now, does it?
Hillary supporters believe you are wrong and they are right.
That you see, is the problem.
But the NSA already registered every Americans in a database. It would be racist to exclude Muslims from it. We must be inclusive in our surveillance of U.S. citizens.
>They still voted for an outspoken racist and sexist.
Accusation without evidence. Not an argument.