If Hubski were an echo chamber I wouldn't have to mute 58 people. Seriously speaking: NOBODY seeks to spend time with people they disagree with other than trolls. If you have friends with differing opinions about something, chances are good you started out with a great affinity for something, a lot in common, and a general worldview that aligns... and then when you found your differences, you explored them together. That's what communities do. Those people whom you have nothing in common with: You're not going to learn anything from them. You start your discussion on a war footing. That's what humans do. Progress is not made by mashing polar opposites together and making them fight. Progress is made by putting people who agree 90% together and then giving them the room to learn about the 10% they don't see eye-to-eye on. Hubski is pretty good about that.
If Hubski were an echo chamber I wouldn't have to mute 58 people.
Well put. I'd like to add that IMO, the most important people that I hope we attract are not necessarily people with vastly different ideologies but rather people that are self aware and confident enough to say, "you changed my thinking here," when presented with an idea that challenges their preconceptions and changes their views. -when I see that on Hubski it's a good day. When it's me writing it, it's a great day.
One of my favorite phrases I've stolen in recent years is "I love being wrong, it means I've learned something" I think Penn Jillette might have said it, and though I don't agree with him on a lot of issues, I found this sentiment in particular quite eye opening. I had what I refer to as "A moment of adulthood" where I suddenly realized that being wrong was NOT a bad thing. It would be bad if I continued to want to be wrong to save my dignity or whatever. But to actually have the chance to swim in your own past experiences of wrongness? That is one of the most human things you can do.
This is the most eloquent way to put it. Just because there is agreement, does not mean that there is an echo chamber. I am sure there is plenty of disagreement on the site. If you have friends with differing opinions about something, chances are good you started out with a great affinity for something, a lot in common, and a general worldview that aligns... and then when you found your differences, you explored them together. That's what communities do.
Does that mean that the difference between an echo chamber or not is defined largely by what part is discussed? For instance, if a community only talks about a part of that 90% that everyone likes (say: a subreddit on a topic I like) it'll probably be an echo chamber on that topic, whereas a community that often discusses the 10% will not be an echo chamber.
An echo chamber, by definition, reinforces and repeats an opinion. For instance, "DAE Reddit" is likely to be 90% "LOL Reddit" on Reddit, the other 10% "fuck you, newfag." "DAE Hubski" on Hubski is likely to be 90% "why is this question being asked, exactly" and "...yes? Your point?" and "Where's my STFU button?" There's much less incentive ("upboats!") for adding pointless agreement on sites with a limit to the reinforement.
We've got plenty to disagree about, the fact that we may not clash on political matters as much as art, music, psychology or ethics, science or writing, does not mean that we're an echo chamber. It's this dastardly culture that can take an entire community and evaluate it solely on a political perspective, even to go so far as to divide us into 2-4 categories, and decide that since we only fall under 1 or 2 of those political categories then drawing any conclusion about us therein is justified. That says nothing about the community in my opinion. Especially with this idiotic survey.
Fair enough, I just thought that I'd open the question for discussion, as no one had addressed it within the post I linked to. Well, that was pretty damning... I'd just wanted to see some thoughts, and I got 'em. I really dig it here, and ironically, there were some intense disagreements that played out while I was making the original post. Unfortunately, the content and nature of the discourse mostly revolved around one user being a total moron. 8bit referenced this in his post. As for your statements, I agree with all of them, albeit less passionately.It's this dastardly culture that can take an entire community and evaluate it solely on a political perspective, even to go so far as to divide us into 2-4 categories, and decide that since we only fall under 1 or 2 of those political categories then drawing any conclusion about us therein is justified.
I meant no offense to you man, opening a topic for discourse doesnt make you personally responsible for the topic :D Half the time I make a discussion-based post I don't even take a viewpoint cause I don't even know where I stand yet.
Hey thanks. :) I always enjoy your perspectives, much respect.