Due the homogeneity of the results from al's post on political leanings, I think it's a valid question. The test probably pandered to us types, but we were all clustered so tightly in the bottom left quadrant.
I recall seeing some discussion on this, but a Hubski search for "echo chamber" turns up nothing. I'm pretty sure I remember seeing the term used verbatim in conversation here, but I could be mistaken.
I'm not accusing the site's infrastructure or user base of consciously/actively promoting any ideology over another, I'm primarily asking:
Does Hubski repel the very sort of people that it would perhaps be healthiest for us to engage in debate with?
I'm not saying you guys' worldviews are wrong... hell, I overwhelmingly agree with the general ideology around here. Does that make me less valuable of a commodity to the community?
Any discussion or links to previous discussion appreciated.
I specifically did not take al's test. Here's why: 1) The questions were obviously geared liberal, and they weren't written properly either. They prompted/anticipated the decision, I've never seen a more obviously biased survey like that. 2) There was no middle ground. 3) I really liked to think that Hubski would be the one place we wouldn't have to compare our political affiliations as a representation of our worth.
I'd also like to think most people who decided not to ignore the test, at least didn't take it so seriously. I don't think a multiple choice survey based on a handful of idiotic questions can gauge your 'political affiliation' either.
Yeah some of these questions were so biased it hurt. And there was this "do you believe in astrology?" question that was just plain ridiculous. I don t see how that could affect my political affiliation, believing in astrology is just an indication of being uneducated.
Now, I don't believe in astrology but I do know some very well educated people who do. While I think I know where you're coming from, to me this statement is as dismissive as saying that someone is "crazy". I astrology extremely unlikely to be true? Of course. But does it provide a comforting framework from which to view the universe? Absolutely. Personally, while I find many people's beliefs to be absurd, ridiculous or downright silly, I can't go around presuming that education will persuade them to believe otherwise or presume that because I don't believe in these things that I'm better, more intelligent or more educated than they are.believing in astrology is just an indication of being uneducated
But the more I think about it, I have trouble flat out denying that our constantly changing position in the solar system/galaxy and the gravitational effects of the moon and other planets must have some sort of an effect on the chemical balances that make up our consciousness. Surely we wouldn't even be here without those gravitational forces.
Alright, let's talk about this. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is f = Gm1m2/r^2 Where f = force of gravitation between two masses G = universal gravitational constant, 6.67e-11 Nm/kg^2 m1 = mass of first object m2 = mass of 2nd object r = distance between the centroids of the two objects Let's roll it for a dude on earth, m1 being 6e24 kg, m2 being 60 kg, r = minimum radius of the earth = 6353000 m. = 589.8N Let's roll it for a dude at the maximum radius of the earth = 6384000 m. = 586.2N So in going from Death Valley to Mt Everest you've increased the force from gravity by 12.6N. That's three pounds - we used to remember "newtons" by remembering that a "quarter pounder" is a "newton burger." Clearly, there's a force at work here. ...but how much are we experiencing from even, say, the moon? m1 = 60kg m2 = 7.35e22 kg r(min) = 363104000 m = .0021N. a fifth of a gram. Okay, how much is it at the maximum? = .00197N. also a fifth of a gram. The difference is .00013 n, about 13 milligrams. By way of comparison, every time you breathe you're breathing in 600 milligrams. And that's just the moon. To be clear - I'm not saying that we know absolutely everything there is to know about the influence of our environment on our behavior. there might be some environmental factor that loosely correlates to zodiacal signs. It sure as fuck isn't what the astrologers say, though. Same is true of Acupuncture - stabbing certain spots with needles does, occasionally, have a measurable effect. That effect is demonstrably not due to meridians, however.
I'm just speculating here based on my limited knowledge of the subject, but I think that astrology has less to do with any specific force acting on people than it has to do with viewing the universe as having an inherent order to it. I'm close with a number of Hindus (highly educated ones; all manners of advanced degree) who take astrology very seriously. From what I gather, they use astrology as God's way of telling us what God is doing in the universe. Some may say that it is due to this or that specific gravitational or electrochemical force, but I think that's a superficial reading of it. My interpretation is that God has ordained that the world be so, and God also made the heavens. The heavens therefore are correlates to all that is God's plan. This is a simplistic and perhaps incorrect reading of the text, but it's the best I got. Anyway the point is that we can throw out the fact that G is disappearingly small over great distances, because it's not really the point. Apologies if I'm telling you stuff of which you're already aware, but I think this point is lost on many people, especially young people who haven't yet figured out that there's more to life than the measurable.
Ahhh, but grasshoper: that's not the discussion at hand. The discussion at hand is: Your allegation is more along the lines of My response has little to do with your allegation, and your allegation has little to do with my response. They are part of the same discussion, but they are not the same discussion. It's foolish to think we know everything about the universe. It's equally foolish to think that those who came before us knew nothing. However, there are a lot of ancient beliefs that were misguided and uninformed and, if the leading lights who reached those conclusions thousands of years ago could see modern science, they likely would have reached different conclusions. That's the point of science, as far as I'm concerned: expand knowledge. So when onlythelonly says maybe astrology = gravity the scientific move is to demonstrate that astrology does not equal gravity, and that we've known this for 300 years. That's a far cry from saying astrology = NOTHING however. I put a lot more credence into Chinese astrology because it makes sense to me that people born during the same geopolitical environment in the same place who grow up together are likely to have similar wants, fears, and worldviews. That's a tricky one to test, though. Throw it into God's court and it isn't particularly testable. Which is appropriate: faith and science are at 90 degrees from each other. One shouldn't have a scientific discussion that hinges on faith, and one shouldn't have a discussion of faith that hinges on science. The discussion above was a discussion of 'faith' that hinges on science. The only logical outcome is to push faith into a different corner or erode someone's trust in science. I have nothing against faith. I'm pretty strongly of the opinion, however, that it shouldn't be used to solve problems that can be treated empirically.I have trouble flat out denying that our constantly changing position in the solar system/galaxy and the gravitational effects of the moon and other planets must have some sort of an effect on the chemical balances that make up our consciousness.
I think that astrology has less to do with any specific force acting on people than it has to do with viewing the universe as having an inherent order to it.
I don't mean to say it's as specific as people blaming their morning traffic jam on mars metrograde. I know will people see what they want to see. I appreciate you running through that for me as I so rarely get to actually crunch numbers. (Err read other people's crunches) Seriously. Fuck yea. On a side note, wouldn't you think the lunar influence would be based on the moon's positioning as it appears faced with earth and sun rather than a person's elevation on the planet. The tides seem obvious but maybe that's misleading with the vastly different volume of water. I wonder how astronauts would be affected by long term lunar landings. I look forward to finding out more about ourselves and our influences as we hurtle through space.
FTFY Allow me to clarify further. There's ample evidence that all sorts of animal and human behavior is affected by the amount of night illumination provided by a full or new moon. Corals spawn according to the amount of moonlight - if you keep a reef tank and want your corals to propagate, you need a moon light that waxes and wanes. - HOWEVER - None of that is accounted for even a tiny little bit by astrology of any kind. It's just not in the model. And that's the important aspect: you can believe that droughts are caused by an angry god or you can believe that droughts are caused by perturbation of the jet stream. If you study perturbations of the jet stream, you're likely to learn a little bit about predicting and mitigating drought. On the other hand, if you study angry gods you're never going to get to the "jet stream" portion of the program. And that's the issue with astrology, with ayurveda, with acupuncture, with homeopathy, with iridology. There is an affect you can see, but you can conclusively prove through trial and error that your model for predicting it is wrong. So your choices are either to throw out your model or to fight skirmishes in the corners so that you can preserve the overarching philosophy that attracted you to the practice in the first place. To quote David Ogilvy: Data is just numbers on a table. It's what you make of it. My point is that when you use that data and say "89% of this illustrates that I have no idea what's going on" you're a lot closer to learning something than when you say "11% of this agrees with my pre-existing hypothesis therefore the orbit of Mars predicts traffic jams."I don't mean to say it's as specific as people blaming their morning traffic jam on Mars in retrograde.
I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.
Word, dude. I look forward to studying turbulence in depth. It seems the crux of everything. Though I'm not sure I could grasp the math Feynman style. I don't believe a nary of astrology but you bring up very sound points as far as how we collect and interperate date. It's all our brains do all day and we are limited.by our past experience. What do you want to see? What are you "actually" seeing. I try to keep it in mind each moment but it sometimes plagues me to think how limited my perspective really is.
Ah ok, I read it a bit differently. From my experience, I see a lot of people scoff at "unscientific" beliefs or points of view, while not entirely understanding the science of many things themselves. Rather, the authority of Science in our time eclipses that of say, magic or ghosts and so some people are too quick to dismiss something, simply because it doesn't fall in the box of What Is Right.
Maybe it's my personal immaturity, but I find individuals with strong religious views that do not think about religion in the context of science as more commendable than diehard atheist scientists. There is a trend for atheists to take up atheism, or worse, science, as a belief system (which it shouldn't be). Just the idea of mixing any kind of faith with science is a corruption of science's core values, because it requires an acceptance of truth that you can't have if "believe" something. I think the same goes with people that use science as a tool to help them "not believe" something, which is hardly any different from "believing" something. In this circumstance, perhaps self-enforced ignorance is better.
I think this definitely true of some people and is often ignored in general. I get that people want to feel that they're in the right, but I just want us to collectively be more proactive in confirming or finding fault in what is popularly construed as "correct", "real" and"true".
It's profiling. "X believes in astrology? Must be a republican!" or something. Perfect example of how stupid this is.
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.
I think a lot of people come here without understanding the difference between discussion, discourse and debate. To me, this site is mostly for discussion, that is, we talk about things in a fairly casual manner for the most part. There is also a lot of discourse, which is generally speaking, talking to each other intelligently and earnestly about various articles and issues that concern us. For example, I would say that this thread invites discourse more specifically than discussion. Debate is much more in line with taking a position, defending it, modifying it, exploring other angles with the intent of winning. Personally, I am not looking for a site where I have to deal with people making comments such as "source?" or even to bother explaining myself. I do that at work all day. It's not what I want to do in my leisure time. What I do want to do is chat with other people who know about stuff I don't. To finally answer your question, I don't think that hubski is an echo chamber. There are many documented instances of sharing information and the exploration of topics that interest individual users. Yes, there are also documented instances of users coming in, fists balled, looking to pick a fight over some ism or another or whatever the flavor of outrage is that day. From my experience, I don't think that we really need to worry about an "echo chamber" because hubski is not the kind of community where we generally look to reinforce any one particular point of view and certainly not with an intent to get others to think in that way.
This is irritating to the nth degree to me. While I think it's important to back up facts if you are giving them, simply saying "source?" is one of the laziest and irritating things I see online. Not everything has a source for one thing, I don't need peer reviewed papers to tell me that toilet paper in my bathroom is white. For another thing, I've noticed this HORRIBLE trend where people will post things with lines like: source: "I ate burritos last night" That is NOT EVEN a source! If I were to write a paper on how I've discovered a magentic monopole, submit it to Physical Review A, and say source: "I once lived in Alaska, there are magnetic monopoles up there", they wouldn't even laugh at me, it's in the realm of Not Even Wrong The whole questioning for sources online gets me really angry. I've seen arguments turn into "Who ever can find the most papers on a subject wins". It's ridiculous and one of the many reasons I am glad for hubski.Personally, I am not looking for a site where I have to deal with people making comments such as "source?"
Oh heeeeey, here's a recent example! You want to argue an opposing opinion with me, that's totally fine, have at ye, scoundrel, and let us draw our blades and clash in our ideologies! I would like, however, if that didn't involve you insinuating that you know the reason why my parents "fucked and had [me]". Or inferring they know anything about what I have to deal with when it comes to my race. Or coming in swinging with insults first when it comes to a discussion on cheating. I argue with friends that have opposing viewpoints all the time. But they bring their A-game. And they know me well enough that they can use aspects of my personal life as evidence. Ergo, the discussion is usually more fruitful than the kinds of opposing viewpoint arguments I get into online. I've had my viewpoints changed on Hubski before. It hasn't always been serious, like things on politics, or religion, or whatever. But kleinbl00 completely changed how I view parties, and he ethered me so hard on the subject that all I could do was badge his comment and stare at the screen. It's possible. But again: you need to bring your A-game.
Yeah, I just checked that out, it was almost refreshing! sigh... OK, not really. Nothing against you, 8bit, that guy is out for blood tonight. He can have some of mine, been too long since I donated. I'll be back tomorrow to talk about things that actually matter, but first I did want to mention that I read that 'bl00 post shortly after he wrote it up, it's one of the first few write ups that popped my Hubski cherry and made me realize that I dig this party*. *1.5/10 pun.I would like, however, if that didn't involve you insinuating that you know the reason why my parents "fucked and had [me]".
I find myself at a loss for words when I encounter someone who seemingly cannot entertain the notion of the opposing position. If you have a group of people who can admit they don't really know for sure you get much better conversation and food for thought. Plenty of people look to play devil's advo for even the most supposedly one sided arguments. Since I'm really only in this to further my own insight i'm not looking to convince anyone of anything, really.
I like to talk about social justice a lot. I'm not a very confident person, really. Years of growing up narrated by tragedy and seemingly hopelessness that any of it will ever get better will do that to you. But I have an indignant and righteous anger that fuels a passion for my stance on this topic that I will not ever sway on. There is nothing to sway towards. Racism does not hurt white people. Sexism does not affect men. Ableism does not hurt the abled. Homophobia does not have an inverse. If you argue against or play devil's advocate on any of these points, you are Wrong. Historically, statistically, factually, empirically Wrong. It is as simple as that. Is there really a fulfilling, opposing argument to be had about this? What insight am I really missing out on? Nothing.
I'd argue the opposite: I think racism hurts white people, sexism affects men, ableism hurts the abled, and homophobia hurts homophobes. I do not think the effects of oppression on the oppressor are comparable at all, but I do think bigotry has a powerful stunting effect of the emotional capacity and overall humanity of the oppressor. In my experience, I've found that the more I widen the scope of my empathy, the more I get out of life. I also believe this generalizes on a much greater scale, but unfortunately I don't have a very strong argument for that. You can look at it from a more practical perspective, though. For example, by disenfranchising women you lose about half of the able minds on the planet. Though that has an absolutely disastrous effect on women, it has an indirect negative effect on men. Of course, I wouldn't make that my primary argument for treating women like human beings, but I do think it's sound.Racism does not hurt white people. Sexism does not affect men. Ableism does not hurt the abled. Homophobia does not have an inverse. If you argue against or play devil's advocate on any of these points, you are Wrong. Historically, statistically, factually, empirically Wrong. It is as simple as that.
Not even playing devil's advocate I would say these are mostly blanket statements that appeal to (y)our invented idea of justice/balance. I would say these examples you've used have become more emotional/morally charged than logical.
To find old hubski things, you can't rely on hubski search (sorry but it's true). Google is your friend here. Googling "hubski echo chamber" turns up this post and more : http://198.211.99.23/pub?id=160552 a Hubski search for "echo chamber" turns up nothing
Snowball bias. Also the metric is meaningless it is geared to makeI everybody libertarian.
What're your thoughts on the tag changes? I'm guessing you don't favor them, as it seems to promote more following users specifically as opposed to the topic as a whole. Not sure how I feel yet, we'll see how it works in practice.
I don't think it's a particularly good idea but I also don't think it's going to have a jot of impact on the site as a whole. That's a trend at hubski -- tons of little updates to features that don't really matter; very rare massive changes that usually tend to work well. I just wish they'd fix fucking markup instead of dicking around with a tagging system that is by no means in its final fundamental iteration.
I almost commented in that thread about the validity of the test as a whole, but decided against it. The problem with that test is that it is extremely loaded. On top of that, all political quizzes are for multiple reasons. The person writing the quiz is going to be biased, and the questions will be loaded whether they intend to or not. If you have multiple people writing a quiz like that, it will end in compromise. Person A gets to load question 1 the way he wants, person B gets to load question 2 the way he wants. Another problem is with the design. Even a 4 point agree/disagree scale is not enough for some of these questions, for instance: This is trying to get you to "pick a side" on whether you think corporations are evil or good. That's a misnomer, as are most political questions in public debate. When evaluating corporations, you have to do it on a case-by-case basis, not "all corporations are good" or "all corporations are evil". It all depends! I can't say "agree" or "disagree" here either! It all depends on the details of what my country is doing. My biggest flaw in the system is that the four corner political quizzes are misleading. By preying on your knowledge that "left" and "right" are simply not good enough, they create a four corner strategy to show you that they are "more valid" than other political evaluations. If you look at it, there are exactly 441 possible outcomes (21x21 grid). On a planet with 7 billion people, there should be 7 billion outcomes since no human is ever going to 100% agree with each other on all topics. So how do you design a fair political quiz? The answer isn't how we do such a thing, the answer is we simply cannot. Politics cannot be boiled down to simple quizzes like this. If you think they can, then maybe you're a Chandler and the drink that most represents you is an appletini.If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.
Also see https://hubski.com/pub?id=162336 As the sole right-leaning person (so far) in the thread you linked to, I will say that I often don't feel comfortable posting thoughts or opinions on hubski because I am obviously in the minority and I don't want to spend all my time on hubski debating or defending my perspective. I just don't care for it. I prefer to post cool science news or read stuff from hubski's arty side. I definitely think hubski would benefit from intelligent, respectful, active commenters of varied political persuasions; I'm just not sure where they'd come from. Seems like most hubskiers are reddit refugees, and reddit has a solidly liberal, progressive userbase.
I can understand not wanting to debate a topic to death, but do you really not feel comfortable posting those views here? I hope that is not the case, because of hubski's Personal Curation Algorithm (tm) where users are able to make hubski their own, I would hope that the only people who really feel uncomfortable posting their opinions are those who are doing something really harmful to others. I will say that I often don't feel comfortable posting thoughts or opinions on hubski because I am obviously in the minority and I don't want to spend all my time on hubski debating or defending my perspective.
Hey, sorry for the delayed reply. I think it's more me than hubski--so far hubki's conversation level seems very high, and I don't think anyone would be rude or mean-spirited. I do see a lot of passion around certain topics, however, and I wind up keeping my opinion to myself because I'd just rather not engage and spend all my time on hubski defending my viewpoints instead of using hubski as a jumping-off point for the greater internet. And I don't want to mute anyone (at least not yet) because while I may totally disagree with someone's perspective on feminism or basic income, I might still want to hear what they have to contribute to a conversation on colonizing Mars. The Personal Curation Algorithm (tm) is kind of a double-edged sword in that way--while I may prevent someone from going off on me for my regressive attitude toward tax policy, I also prevent myself from experiencing all the other positive things they contribute to the site. Hence, I choose to keep my opinion to myself when I'm obviously and dramatically outnumbered on a particular issue. Edit: Also, I tend to be a lurker more than anything. I'm trying to get better about it, but I can't post much from work, and I don't have internet access at home. Makes it difficult.
Does hubski have a townhall or anything that functions like it as opposed to the policy/in-house discussion placed interstitially amongst our finest work and bait-i-est of link? A place to retire the self-referencing echoes of our digital sighs but yet still cool enough to allow our eponymous intricacies and snowflake like personalities to follow the commentary that floats above the actual content would be welcome.
A place to retire the self-referencing echoes of our digital sighs but yet still cool enough to allow our eponymous intricacies and snowflake-like personalities to follow the commentary that floats above the actual content would be welcome.
Sentences like this make me wonder if you are one of the lamedvavniks. It strikes me that there might be another hubski slogan in that statement.