
Why Echo Chambers Are Useful [pdf] - crunchiebones
https://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/materials/jm_papers/921/echochambers.pdf
======
austincheney
The problem with echo chambers isn't so much verification (is the information
accurate?) but rather validation (is the process of acceptance rational or
qualified?).

Echo chambers tend to be hyper-subjective, which means new information is
accepted or rejected on the basis of content-oriented rules opposed to whether
decisions upon the information are valid, qualified, or balanced. That
suggests the injection of precisely targeted information focusing on group
acceptance is the only criteria of success, which makes the group dangerously
susceptible to manipulation.

Counter-intuitively echo chambers are primarily desirable for a number of
irrational reasons not related to subject matter. People tend to find security
in conforming group dynamics, generally fear originality, and strongly enjoy
commitment even in opposition to strong evidence.

Contrarily, in echo chamber opposed groups the primary qualifier of
information acceptance is process of argumentation. The idea or information
that survives a brutal, but process-approved, argument is the most worthy.
That form of objectivity can be emotionally disruptive for persons not
prepared or understanding of the group process.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> Contrarily, in echo chamber opposed groups the primary qualifier of
> information acceptance is process of argumentation.

Ostensibly, but there's a lot of people notionally opposed to echo chambers
who are very happy in their own.

~~~
moorhosj
Lots of people are hypocrites or just completely oblivious to the cocoons
they’ve built.

------
Just_Smith
I found this an interesting read, and it certainly makes a good point. Echo
chambers are definitely going to have a greater net throughput of information
compared to a network in which members aren't keen to share with one another
due to perceived differences. So overall, members of an echo chamber can end
up more informed than if they hadn't been. However, I think it's important to
note that modern discourse isn't critical solely of echo chambers, but also of
their effects when false information is introduced into one. The same trust
that allows more informed members also facilitates misinformation.

That being said, it's probably more effective to use that lack of verification
to police misinformation within the echo chamber than to introduce members
that could offer contradictory - but also potentially false - information. It
would just require some added diligence from members of the echo chamber.

~~~
nl
_it 's probably more effective to use that lack of verification to police
misinformation within the echo chamber than to introduce members that could
offer contradictory - but also potentially false - information._

Putting aside the verification problem for a minute, doesn't the echo chamber
problem lead almost automatically to group think?

I do machine learning, and I see a strong analogy here with overfitting. If
all the data is from a subset of of population and it is never validated
outside that subset then the model will become strong on that subset data but
much weaker outside.

In machine learning we use a variety of regularization techniques to combat
this. One thing that actually works pretty well to build _robust_ models is (a
small amount of) mislabeled data: the model learns not to depend on any single
feature.

~~~
pjc50
What do people actually mean by "groupthink" here and why precisely is it bad?
Everyone drives on the same side of the road and (mostly) follows the same
traffic rules and we don't call it "groupdrive".

Surely having everyone believe the same _true_ thing isn't actually bad -
nobody calls Maxwell's equations "groupthink" unless they're trying to sell
you a perpetual motion machine.

~~~
nl
_Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people
in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an
irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to
minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation
of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and
by isolating themselves from outside influences_

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink)

The most commonly used example is the Bay of Pigs invasion, where no one
advising Kennedy raised any possible negative consequences. That’s seen in
contrast to the Cuban Missile crisis a few years later where Kennedy actively
sort contrary advice.

------
starbeast
On a related note, I have recently been wondering if the large scale swings in
society from being outgoing to being insular and back, might be evolutionarily
beneficial due to the speed of genetic drift varying for different sizes of
breeding populations.

Small populations get the fast drift for adaptation, but mixing those with
other adaptations from other small populations gets strength in depth, so you
have two opposing evolutionary strategies, one which prefers isolation of
groups and one that prefers mixing.

Over evolutionary timescales, oscillating between these two behaviours could
presumably get baked into the genes, so leading our politics to swing between
isolation and gregariousness as part of a natural evolutionary cycle.

------
kopo
Very interesting. I have had this feeling watching political
news/gamergate/comicgate/damore etc.

Too much energy gets expended trying to convince/shame/punish the other side.
None of it imho has produced outcomes or increased understanding.

When dealing with unknown unknowns/ambiguity etc why not just split the
groups, let them go do their thing on two separate islands, like running two
parallel jobs based on contradictory assumptions and let the best job win.

How do we split without causing a mess is the big question? We maybe in an
overly connected state atm or certain issues require disconnection and echo
chambers.

Thought experiment (slightly ridiculous and loaded but use your imagination
here) - there is a lot of talk about splitting up Google for example. What if
Google is split on an issue like unconscious bias training. Those who support
it produce one search engine and those who don't (damore camp) produce
another. Don't we get better information over all?

Right now when I read a "this is how you need to think" article on CNN, I
shake my head and go look at what Fox has to say. And when Fox is fawning over
Trump I go the other way.

~~~
Arbalest
I've had a similar thought experiment before, where basically you let people
of different political leanings go to their own countries with their like
minded ilk. Two problems arise:

1\. People tend to hold complex combinations of views which may not completely
align with everyone else. How many partitions do you need in order to make
this work?

2\. Mobility remains an issue. People simply don't have the resources to get
up and go to something they actually support and build it up.

~~~
TangoTrotFox
I've also had similar thought experiments here. But take it a step further.
It's probably safe to say that the current biggest divide in society is in
political ideology. Let's just call this left/right, though that's far from
precise. Imagine we placed all 'left' individuals in one US, and all 'right'
individuals in another completely identical (in terms of physical resources,
preexisting infrastructure, etc) US. And migration between these two nations
was freely and instantly allowed, but only if you absolutely abided the
initial ideological split. How long would it take before these two nations
then had their own internal splits with people dividing themselves among some
new subissue?

Of course you hit on this with #1, but I think the answer is that there is no
limit to the number of partitions. In other words that division is itself
inevitable. So rather than trying to ideologically homogenize ourselves, I
think it's more important to for people to embrace diversity of views as
opposed to attack everything that doesn't conform to, what to them, seems self
evident. Because for 'the other side', their views are likely seen as
identically self evident. When sides remain incapable of doing anything except
working to antagonize the other, in the end the only way things would be
resolved is by force of arms which is certainly something almost nobody wants.

------
usefulcat
This is an interesting idea (that echo chambers may be objectively useful in
certain ways), but to me the bigger question is, even if that is true, how
much of a factor is it compared to more mundane causes like plain old
cognitive dissonance?

------
radiowave
Disappointed to discover this isn't about acoustics.

~~~
anonytrary
You shouldn't be surprised, "echo chamber" has taken a new meaning ever since
social media became influential.

